On Monday evening, the French Senate approved the government's Notre-Dame restoration bill - but added a clause that it must be restored to the state it was before the blaze — The Local
The French senate has stepped into the fray over how to rebuild Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris by passing a bill approving the government’s planned restoration effort with the added requirement that the cathedral be rebuilt to its "last known visual state.”
Notre-Dame competition an extraordinary opportunity, says Norman Foster. https://t.co/uQxmDZgHbz pic.twitter.com/FPpQgUmckF
— Royal Fine Art (@RoyalFineArt) April 20, 2019
The move is a rebuke to French prime minister Edouard Philippe, who promptly called for an international competition to find a suitable rebuilding plan following the April 15 blaze. Norman Foster and others have weighed in on the proposed improvements, which include visions for new glass spires, evocative light installations, and other eclectic approaches.
As the government’s legislative bodies move to set a plan and gather funds to launch the restoration, a disagreement over how to proceed will be one to watch.
25 Comments
Common sense prevails. Even the mayor sided with the 'conservatives'.
hopefully they put in a fire suppression system, that was not in the previous state
Someone is going to have to explain to me how this is 'common sense prevailing.' Not expressing the spirit of the times vis-avis architecture is a-historical, derivative, and downright regressive.
because it was fine as it was before the fire... as well as for the centuries before it. No need to turn this into a marketing fiasco for some fancy-pants designer. Expressing the "spirit" (whatever the fuck that means) is best reserved for lesser, and forgettable, projects.
the building 's been there for 800 years dude, that's the spirit of the times.
Most of the world is scared of the future right now. It is perfectly sensible to want to keep it away and build comfort-food architecture.
When Notre Dame was built it symbolized the future, but for the last hundred years its been all about the past. For people who prefer to look backwards its a no-brainer. As Disney as possible, please and thank you. By Disney of course I mean it should not be real and there should definitely be some racism at the core of the entire enterprise. Totally in sync with the current spirit of the times no?
Disney is racist? The firm that bends over backwards with political correctness and incessantly plays to the sensibilities of the hurt group de jour?
it symbolized the future? where did you get that?
Volunteer, the hurt group du jour are the right-wing, the fascists, the neo-nazis, the racists, the white supremacists, etc. The fact that they're making gains in politics doesn't change that. When you complain (ironically) about victims, it says more about your lack of empathy than any point you're trying and failing to make.
notre dame was gothic, the height of hi-tech, and the future, when it was first going around. The building was enhanced along those lines, continuously modified to bring in new tech and new ideas. This is true up until the addition by viollet le-duc. He himself wrote "To restore a building is not to preserve it, to repair, or rebuild it; it is to reinstate it in a condition of completeness which could never have existed at any given time," . This quote is swiped from dezeen. There are some other places if you have access to JSTOR or similar. The options are obvious. Restore out of fear of loss, or make something new because we are not afraid. I'm sympathetic to both points of view and for our times it makes sense to go with the flow and just put it back to what was there before. It would of course be more hilarious if someone insisted the design be set back to its original 12th century design, and get rid of those ghastly but oh so trendy flying buttresses.
Good decision.
Restoration architecture friends, here's your much needed boost. Enjoy.
The more contemporary scene architecture friends, if you needed Notre Dame to prove yourselves to the public, you're already done.
For all purposes it's a tourist site and a civic monument symbolizing an idealized past. Such conditions are never conducive to a meaningful expression of contemporary society - or at least they are most ready to express the retrograde and conservative aspects of society.
So it's not insincere to basically rebuild what was there before, any more than it is when that Japanese temple gets rebuilt in traditional craft. The act of rebuilding according to precedent is an expression of society's aims, and the bureaucratic fumbling and incompetent workmanship (which is what got it burned down already) will be the mark left by contemporary society.
When it was built, the Catholic church was an organization with a far different role in European society than it holds today. And France had a much less defined place in the world.
At this point the religious function of the building is obsolete. There is no reason for a cathedral in Paris to be a vision of the future; and I think it would actually be insincere if it were considered that way. No one serious thinks the Church is a force for progress in Europe, and whatever France's role in the future may be, it probably isn't possible or appropriate to express in this building.
ughhhh. No. Everything is wrong except the thing about shitty craftsmanship...
These reactions are amazing considering we're talking about an old church. But then again, it's not just any old church. Let's start here...
Rocky Hanish - Someone is going to have to explain to me how this is 'common sense prevailing.' Not expressing the spirit of the times vis-avis architecture is a-historical, derivative, and downright regressive.
Because the spirit of the times happen unconsciously, not because some narcissist wants to brand their vision over a pluralist world. Was the revival of Classicism in the Renaissance downright regressive?
Will Galloway - Most of the world is scared of the future right now. It is perfectly sensible to want to keep it away and build comfort-food architecture.
When was the world not scary? During the black plague, famine and endless wars of the past? If my child is scared, is the protection and reassurance I give her like comfort food?
When Notre Dame was built it symbolized the future
Bullshit. It represented the glory of god, the power of its builders, excellent workmanship and artistry or whatever people saw in it.
To realize how stupid this kind of analysis is, imagine applying this thinking to a field like music or literature. Modernist, classicist, and anything in between is just fine if it's done well. Welcome to the modern pluralist world. We don't need people dictating what shape beauty should take, we just need more of it.
Thayer D - Preach!
This is not the worst decision. I hope that they are open to the idea of recreating it visually but making it modern structurally.
It never ceases to amaze me how prevalent is the notion that all [even dead] beauty is good. Re-use the shell for the present populace and discard the sentimental sarcophagus mindset. It is in the middle of Paris-polis, not the Atacama desert. History is eternal and will remain [or vanish] in spite of any modern intervention or our best intentions. The misguided as reported reconstruction shall take it's place in the continuing real, deterministic history of the structure. As one of the few first world countries with a rich millennial-old built history, french Architects are [some of] the best at melding past and present. Ledoux just turned over in his grave, pffft.
The religion that frightens me most is the cult of progress. It has not served us well. What it is most successful at is erasing the past. No one reads anymore.
Preservation of Notre Dame as it was is not a statement of the superiority of anything, of the past, of a style, of a system of beliefs. It is simply a reminder, though for some it will remain a vehicle for faith. The cathedral, in its details, in the figures of statues and in rose windows, was built to provide a visual encyclopedia representing a vast, interrelated, and complex iconology (a word now dissipated into nothingness) that was the core of culture high and low for centuries, up until modern times. At the very least, the religion understood that life is not simple, that it has its dark side as well as light. You cannot read Shakespeare or Camus, for example, without understanding Christian theology. That does not mean blind acceptance, however. Often literature qualified the religion, conflicted itself, or reacted against.
And religion—any religion—has inspired our most engaging and penetrating architecture. All of this to be replaced with a glass roof and spire that are essentially meaningless.
That said, I'm curious what the justification is for respecting Viollet-le-Duc's decisions, not that I disagree. Above, St. Thomas, on the spire, designed in his own image. Secular, he was very much a product of his times. Still, he studied past buildings, and interpreted restoration was his goal.
Whatever is built will have to be designed to age so it eventually fits in with the rest of the building.
I've seen the word "iconic" used to describe cars, toys, hamburgers, tv shows, and just about every building that is a bit different. It has lost its significance and its teeth. I suggest we replace it with "neato" or "nifty" or, if you're French "chouette."
+++“The religion that frightens me most is the cult of progress.” Perfectly said!
The 'cult of progress' is really just unbridled capitalism, where profit is the only measure of anything. Progress is a new iPhone every 6 months with some incremental "advancement" like turd avatars (and soaring prices). Progress is tearing down a perfectly functional building because more money can be made maxing out the property with upscale development. Such progress discards humanity, environment, and sanity in favor of ROI.
"Free" enterprise, which is anything but, is another cult. How much, how many have been sacrificed at its altar?
Socialism is another cult. How many have been sacrificed at Its altar? A couple hundred million...
Let me fix this....socialism hmm...”Such progress discards humanity, environment, freedom, innovation, and sanity in favor of government control.
With many modern buildings you can ascertain almost the month and year of their design by just looking at them and their tired styles: Post-modernism, deconstructionism, brutalism, parametricism. If any one of these tired cliches were incorporated into Notre Dame they would look aged and dated and dead compared to the church itself.
Here is what the people of Dresden, with the help of not a few British, did with their cathedral that was reduced to rubble in World War II bombing raids. The brown pieces in the photo of the exterior are what was salvaged from the original.
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.