With the Notre Dame design competition well underway participants and submission ideas are flowing in. Although many submission ideas poke fun at the possibilities of what the new design could be, some firms are looking at the competition as an opportunity. Norman Foster of Foster + Partners shared this thoughts for what the cathedral's new roof and spire could look like. However, when the rendered image, created by The Times, based on his feedback, made its way to social media, the public took to commenting with much criticism.
Notre-Dame competition an extraordinary opportunity, says Norman Foster. https://t.co/uQxmDZgHbz pic.twitter.com/FPpQgUmckF
— Royal Fine Art Commission Trust (@RoyalFineArt) April 20, 2019
The new cathedral spire is said to be made of glass and steel with the possibility of also having a built-in observation deck at the base of the spire. Foster views the competition as an opportunity to view the spire rebuild as a way to utilize the "technology of the age [...] The decision to hold a competition for the rebuilding of Notre Dame is to be applauded because it is an acknowledgment of that tradition of new interventions.” Although Foster's enthusiasm may seem genuine the public's reaction online is anything but positive.
Where do I submit my Notre-Dame proposal? #architecture #betterthanFoster pic.twitter.com/edRg7VY739
— christopher (@heychristofur) April 20, 2019
Since its posting Twitter followers have shared their two cents on this "modernization scheme." Comments of the new spire idea express a mixture of feedback from those in the profession as well as the self-proclaimed "architectural enthusiasts."
To follow Archinect's coverage of the Notre Dame Cathedral click here.
UPDATE: This article has been edited to clarify that the rendering of Foster's proposal was created by The Times, based on Lord Norman Foster's feedback. The rendering was not created by Foster + Partners, as they have not developed any design proposals thus far.
67 Comments
no just no
If I had time I would mock up a series of various starchitect proposals for Notre Dame.
Meier, Gehry, OMA, BIG, H&dMoron, etc.
The glass roof would be an insult to the stained glass. It's a Gothic cathedral not a conservatory.
I am waiting for Daniel Libeskind's skewed star of david proposal.
I'm looking forward to a parametric blob by Shoemaker.
What I'm not looking forward to is the next 2+ years of mediocre graduate thesis projects that seek to solve this design "problem". If I had the time... I'd Photoshop something with shipping containers.
Tacky! This is a cathedral, not a mall. Just let them restore it as it was and keep your glass spire. Might need it for the next skyscraper.
I'm confident that the glass roof doesn't illuminate the cathedral itself; it's above the stone vaulting.
What the glass roof *does* do is turn the attic space into a brightly-lit tourist-mall-cafe-promenade, where folk can spend money on Quasimodo tshirts and buy a latte before heading up to the viewing platform. It's just what the market wants. <sarcasm>
Nice!
I'd have a pint on that observation deck.
My colleagues and I were joking about turning the whole attic space into a brew pub. Except then you have to find a way to make it down the stairs.
A brew pub would be great... as the only respectable use of these institutions (I know cathedral =\= monastery... but I'm not splitting hairs here. Also, I'm thirsty) is to make trappiste brews. Sign me up if the Belgians get involved.
love it DS :)
I looked, the only Quasimodo Tees I could find are Disney. :(
glass elevator to heaven?
and this guy won the pritzker?
Leave it off.
Lisbon cathedral, right? I've been there, it's fantastic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmo_Convent_(Lisbon)
Yes, that's what I was thinking of.
.
Hugo again, from Hunchback:
Beside each wrinkle on the face of this old queen of our cathedrals, you will find a scar. Tempus edax, homo edacior. Which I would gladly translate as ‘Time is blind, man is stupid’. Had we the leisure to examine, one by one, with the reader, the various traces of destruction imprinted on this ancient church, time’s share would be the lesser, that of men the greater, and especially men of ‘the art’. I have to say ‘men of the art’ because in the past two centuries certain individuals have adopted the title of ‘architect’.
He's referring to previous changes, for example putting clear glass in one part in place of stained. The novel was written before Viollet-le-Duc's restoration, in fact was instrumental in making it happen.
the glass is tacky, average and corporate looking and definitely does not live up to the uniqueness of the building.
answer of modern fashion star architects to all challenging design problems...
GLASS ... GLASS ... MORE GLASS
This image isn't getting a lot of play. I'm guessing it's a drawing by The Times, where it first appeared, based on Foster's comments. You have to subscribe to TT to see the whole article, so credits might be below.
Not that it makes much difference.
is there actually a formal competition underway or is it just press releases?
only person i'd trust is david chipperfield
Since a traditional redo would look cheap, I'd propose a win-win proposal -- a retractable roof that can open and close depending on mood, time of day, etc. That way you can get both the dark aura and then open up to get light over a glass canopy.
Also, embedded in the glass canopy could be color LEDs, where you could get a trippy colorful glass effect that is in the spirit of gothic architecture.
Why do you say that a traditional reconstruction would look cheap?
If you've visited the Sagrada Familia, you can tell which parts are new -- they look simplified, clean, and not obviously not original
By that logic VLD's work looked cheap, until it didn't.
Wow! Does the public have an opinion on design when it involves historic structures?
A calm assessment of this idea is not possible without a large scale model to create the emotional experience of light from above inside this church. It is possible this could be a genius solution similar to the Pompidou Center.
If someone came into the Louvre and slashed the Mona Lisa with a craft knife, you wouldn't bring in a modern painter to "update" it to reflect "our time". You'd hire the best art restoration team available to return it to as close to its original state as possible.
Notre Dame is a great work of art. Restore it exactly as it was.
but architecture isn't art
If the Villa Savoye caught fire, and a significant part of the roof of the building were consumed, do you think that Richard Rogers would advocate adding a glass greenhouse to it? Or do you think he'd advocate reconstructing it as it was originally built?
What are the characteristics of a building like Notre Dame which would separate it from "art", and make the approach one should take to repairing it different from how one would restore a great painting (as in the Mona Lisa thought-experiment above)?
Erik, to your example of Villa Savoye, a more accurate analogy would be if they decided to build a sloped roof on it. But dead on as usual. The double standards are amazing.
It’s a good analogy, Erik. But Villa Savoye is no longer a living building. It’s a place to visit only, like one would visit s work is art like the Mona Lisa. Notre Dame is still a living church, isn’t it? Or is it more or less a static monument at
this point? I don’t know
"Architecture isn't art".
Not sure if Donna is baiting me here. While the practice of architecture is decidedly not art (it is design), architecture can become art via social, historical, and cultural significance.
Villa Savoye is an overrated design that ignores humanity yet was adopted as a vision for the future (with less than stellar results).
Notre Dame took 100 years to build and is an example of the pinnacle of design and engineering of its time.
Architecture...t he art of design
We've had this discussion. Architecture isn't art. They spring into being from completely different places of intention. Yes, sometimes they cross into one another's realms. Some pieces of architecture basically become sacred and static and thus more "art-like" I'd put Saarinen's Miller House in this category. It's a gorgeous building that is dead: no one lives there, people visit it to see it trapped in its glorious moment. It's preserved now much like a famous work of art is - like the Mona Lisa. Notre Dame is still a home of a living, active christian congregation, yes? Or am I wrong, has the building become a static monument for visitors only, not a contributing, active piece of a living community? If it's a functioning church, the congregation may want to update it to meet their current needs, much as the building has been updated already over the centuries.
I'm not sure one can speak for where someone else's art might spring, but if history is a guide, you'll find for many, it was motivated by a desire to bring beauty into peoples lives. This is what the dictionary says - Art: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Whether one sees Notre Dame as a holy place, a historical relic, or shelter in a storm, the outpouring of emotion as it burned was universal, because most of all it is an incredible expression of human creative skill and imagination to be appreciated primarily for its beauty and emotional power.
Donna, this building is a functioning monument. It's not one or the other, it's both.
Donna, neither the diocese or parish own the Church and therefore do not control the rebuilding efforts. Since neither established this competition for something different then it seems their ongoing use of the Cathedral is not a reason to implement change.
Some modern architects don't seem to grasp that the Gothic style is very much alive, particularly with many collegiate Gothic examples being built today. Same for the follow-on Beaux-Arts style. The architectural world did not start with the Bauhaus as much as many want to close their eyes and stamp their feet to make it so.
invert the fucking spire
Stab into hell.
This won't grill the icons and other sensitive items inside?
Darkness is not a negative quality. It is spiritual negative space. And what we do is changing that into a green house light ambience, which is associated with watching. Rather than contemplating.
U can have a modern church with lot of glass. Yet you need to know that you design for religion dictionary not sport or mall dictionary.
How will you cool the lens alike green house in summer?
So architecturally it is possible. But glass is not a cutting edge Modern. It has been in the market since 100 years at least.
And you need to think of the spiritual ambience you are tuning.
And again it is not a gallery where you show temporarily. It is a church that preserved icons since hundreds of years. You dont want to wash them with light and heat.
Religion does not need to be preserved. Just slap a new metal roof and re-open the gift shops.
At the very least, the competition will draw attention to restoration, maybe a good PR move. Also it's giving architects a chance to get recognition—but show off as well. Whatever is done should be integrated into the overall design. One hopes the winning design would take long study of the remaining cathedral and precedents, of type, program, and the building's history, that serious proposals will be a while in coming.
But who knows.
What the competition has done so far, however, is call attention to what should be an understated part of the cathedral. The roof and spire should have some accent and character, but not detract from the rest of the building.
The spire is a design challenge. Viollet-le-Duc's, I understand, is (was) substantially larger than the original. Is it too tall? I can't decide. We just got used to it. But it does complement the rest with its accents and articulation.
I'm all for modern. But the best way to appreciate modern architecture is to see it in contrast to other styles, other ages. That means preserving older buildings for contrast, for memory, for historical perspective, not invading and trying to overpower them. That's what is so galling about Foster's proposal. There's something invasive, self-absorbing, reductive, and blind and blinding about the claim we have to be modern.
What Notre Dame is, stylistically, given its hybrid character and the changes over the centuries, is another challenge itself, that will have to be studied and interpreted.
Nor do we have to continue our technology worship by showing it. It's hard to believe, however, that serious changes won't be needed for the supporting structure, which won't be visible.
Then there's the question of iconography. I assume Viollet-le-Duc's twelve apostles will not be used again. If figures are added on the new spire, who, of what makeup for Our Lady?
That's a picture of the winning proposal.
I'll take it!
Personally always considered that spire an afterthought that should've been VE'd the hell out of that restoration by Viollet-le-Duc. Glad that's been taken care of at least.
A Brit restoring a french cathedral? Despicable.
foster's design is a bit odd unless they are planning a roof garden.
Even so, it makes as much sense as anything in the building before the fire. It is not like the cathedral is remotely like its original form. The church was changed from a 4 story building to 3 stories for god's sake (literally!). A lot of what we saw before this fire only dates to the mid 19th century.
if we were being historical wouldn't the correct choice be to rebuild the church with the latest technology and in the current styles? Just as they did in the hundreds of years of life before (and including) the period when LeDuc made his mark?
I was there by chance just a few days before the fire. My instinct is to simply rebuild it to what was there before, but that is because I see it as a Disney confection, and you know products like that have to be maintained without change for the paying audience. They are inert. Done deal. That was sure my impression, although I know it is actually in use.
I would take heart if it was built for the future instead of the past. It would be evidence that Disney thinking had not quite reached the soul of Paris as much as I thought.
Equating a complimentary design as Disney thinking is not exactly an accurate reading of history. Many architects in the past reached outside of their period to harmonize with older fabric. (Christopher Wren) And by the 19th century, the whole idea of a style being of its time was thrown open to pluralism until modernists banned all but their own style.
"if we were being historical wouldn't the correct choice be to rebuild the church with the latest technology and in the current styles? Just as they did in the hundreds of years of life before (and including) the period when LeDuc made his mark?"
If you where being honest, the 'latest styles' are anyone which worked. And what about modern technology disallows older technologies? Do we ban the streetcar because the automobile is more modern or do we disregard organic farming methods simply because we can genetically modify crops? This kind of determinism is counter to modern thinking, which is plural, democratic and pragmatic, not singular and autocratic.
Odd how modernists architects, whose built work doesn't go back past the 1930s (and much of that only after massive repair) feel qualified to give advice on restoring a cathedral built in 1200.
Here is Disney's take on Notre Dame:
from the animated film Hunchback. Compare with the real thing:
But Viollet-le-Duc's chimeras, I'm reading, were very much modern creations that reflected his times. Yet they have horrified and entranced us in multiple ways ever since. And they fit in with the rest, adding to the depths and darkness and mysteries of the cathedral. Some recent restorations of the chimeras—many are in bad shape—have been accused of being Disneyfied in their simplicity and sentimentality.
That is the test for modern restorers, whether they can come up with anything that matches the deep sentiment of Notre Dame, that will engage and perplex us and endure into the future. So far, all we've see are simplistic, reductive solutions that really border on triteness, in fact are cartoonish.
Then there's the question as to whether modernism of whatever stripe can carry such expression.
Just came across this article, now happily out of date. Happily, since Foster's proposals have been rejected. Only an architect with great sympathy for and intimate knowledge of ancient forms, like Viollet-le-Duc, can make beautiful additions to them. Foster fails on both counts.
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.