Rebuilding the Notre Dame Spire: Proposed New Desings

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,983
Lisbon, Portugal
#11
The previous spire that got burned was in itself a 19th century reconstruction by the famous architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc and modelled under a neo-Gothic style - by being a little similar from the previous spire, though more elaborate.

I don't see any reason of why we should rebuild exactly like the 19th century new addition and remaking of that spire. If we revere Notre Dame so much for being a fine example of a Medieval Gothic Cathedral, why we should reconstruct a structure that wasn't exactly Medieval in the first place? Why not build something new or not rebuild it at all?

But reconsidering the rebuilding of Notre Dame - What precisely rebuilding means in this context? To what extent could, and should, the damaged parts be re-created precisely and why it should be in the first place? In the case of this Cathedral, what "re-creation" exactly means and consists of in a building that mingles medieval architecture with 19th century "Neo-gothic" architecture, and serves a society so different to that of the 12th century?

19th century rebuilders of the Cathedral wanted to re-create the original structure, but by also adding something new that mirrors their own modern period. Why we, in the 21st century, cannot do the same as well? Let's build a new roof and new spiral - let us make something that combines the respect for Medieval heritage while at the same time it mirrors the current days we living in as well.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,076
#12
I'm not even French and anything other than the historical shape that everyone is used to is disagreeable to me.

I was in France for only six months and even with such a short time I grew attached to Notre Dame.

I am fully on board with reframing the structure with updated materials but my preference would be to restore the cathedral back to some semblance of its historical design.

Having said that, IMHO, the French people should have the last word on the design and not some architectural firm or government committee.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,076
#13

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,482
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#14
The only acceptable way of rebuilding it is making it as close to the previous state as possible.

In the end it's going to be an islamic minaret anyway, there's already talk about it. You know, because mUh dIvErSiTy.

I don't even make myself any illusions, It's sad, but they are going to mess it up and the result will be ugly.
 
Oct 2013
13,852
Europix
#15
the end it's going to be an islamic minaret anyway, there's already talk about it. You know, because mUh dIvErSiTy
Nothing is impossible.

But that is a suggestion that doesn't take into account the immense pride, even chauvinism of the French people when it comes to "patrimoine national".

I don't believe it.

It's possible that they will choose something utterly futuristic that we might all hate it.

And in 100 years whole world will admire it. Save money to be able to go see it.

You know, la Tour Eiffel ....
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,604
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#17
The spire of Notre Dame wasn't original ... at least as for I know it was a construction from 1860CE [a substitution of something existed before of it].

And frankly speaking, when I was c/o the National Library in Paris I wasn't there to check the medieval drawings of the original spire, so I cannot say if the XIX century spire was identical to the original one.
 
Aug 2010
15,707
Welsh Marches
#18
The spire of Notre Dame wasn't original ... at least as for I know it was a construction from 1860CE [a substitution of something existed before of it].

And frankly speaking, when I was c/o the National Library in Paris I wasn't there to check the medieval drawings of the original spire, so I cannot say if the XIX century spire was identical to the original one.
There is a useful discussion of Viollet-le-Duc's work at Notre Dame here; it was historicist in nature without being directly imitative. He opposed proposals that would have conflicted with the original architecture, it was not his purpose to make alterations to reflect the spirit of his own time (although looking back we may feel that he was doing so subconscously to some extent, since medievalism and 19th Century medievalism were not entirely the same thing). He removed some 18th Century work that he thought to conflict with the Gothic architecture. I'm worried that we may get some self-advertising piece of modern architecture that conflicts with it, although common sense will probaly win out in the end.
 
Jun 2016
1,766
England, 200 yards from Wales
#19
Would there be enough information to restore (at least the appearance of) what was there before the 19th Century spire?

I'd certainly think any sort of glass roof would be a mistake, the original design of Gothic cathedrals uses light in a way that such a roof would surely disrupt?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,178
Portugal
#20
The reconstruction is a problem that all the reconstructions face: reconstruct based on what timeline?

All options will generate more or less polemics… because it is too Catholic, too Islamic, too left side, too right side… etc…

Personally I would prefer a reconstruction that would reconstruct visually the status before the fire, but with better safety (against fire, earthquakes…) and with new details (WCs, electricity…). But why shouldn’t I suffer a surprise, even if I would criticize it later?
 

Similar History Discussions