Actually, this is a recent very good BBC documentary on the rebuilding of Notre Dame
There are a couple of interesting insights in that video. New at least to me.
One, they are now claiming that they need to match reconstruction of the roof as closely as possible in order to maintain the loads that the main structure was previously under, with the implication that if they didn’t thee could be problems into the future. I’m not sure I buy that. It sounds a bit of a post-hoc justification, but there it is.
Two, the restoration done by Viollet-le-Duc reproduced the much older spire. Rather than being a modern, for the time addition, it was based on existing knowledge of what the spire had been in the past. Viollet-le-Duc performed his renovation with a clear eye to preserving or even restoring the building to as near to original (as much as that can be defined) as possible within constraints of preserving the building and structure.
No, it’s nowhere near that simple. The spire in the original 1843 design by Jean-Baptiste Lassus and Viollet-le-Duc had been a serious attempt to reconstruct the original medieval spire, albeit based on the rather limited evidence available. Even that introduced minor changes which they thought would improve its appearance. But Lassus died in 1857. Viollet-le-Duc then produced a different, much taller, more elaborate design. He knew that this was not what it had ever looked like. Which is why there are now some who instead want what they would regard as a proper reconstruction of the original spire.
One thing the Lucy Worsley programme was very good on is just how radically inauthentic so many of Viollet-le-Duc’s interventions were. The bit about how he rotated one of the rose windows was particularly striking. But he was neither dishonest nor delusional. He was not trying to recreate an exact replica of what may once have existed. It was more that he wanted to create a more perfect version of what he thought his predecessors had imagined.
Plans have been selected for re-organising/upgrading the Parvis and the area around the cathedral:
The ‘restoration’ (some say vandalism) of St Albans Cathedral in the 19th c. by Lord Grimthorpe was similarly criticised, even at the time.
Yeah, first time I’ve seen it in this context/usage too. I assume it just means ‘act with immediacy and with limited regard to risk and propriety’
New roof trusses have been installed:
I still can’t understand why they insist on replacing the trusses with wooden ones and not with steel. Reminiscent of Swamp Castle. Just as I can’t understand why the plan to replace the lead roofing material, which was spread as dust all over the city during the fire, with more lead.
Those are legitimate questions, and the answer is that there are a couple different philosophies when it comes to restoring or renovating cathedrals. Some of this was covered up thread.
There’s one school of thought that favors restoring things using the same materials and techniques used previously to the greatest extent possible. This has gained some traction over the last century or so.
Though for cathedrals, there is often a bit of snag because cathedrals often took centuries to build, and a mix of materials, design philosophies, and techniques were employed. Most undergo near constant renovations, improvements, etc, and are never really ‘complete’ in the sense a house might be.
In the case of Notre-Dame (Paris), the current restoration work aims to restore it to the last known state before the fire, lead roof and all, which would be pretty similar to how it’s been since the mid-19th century or so.
I went to one of the oldest churches in London (according to the guidebooks) disappointed to see it had a flat cement roof - thanks to the Blitz and quick-and-dirty restoration work. If it’s not the same, it’s not the same. You can go see Venice or the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas if all you want is “looks like”.
(Although yes, you could work your way to a “Ship of Theseus” situation by being purist about something.)
Some Blitzed churches were just demolished and never rebuilt, others were left derelict, others modernised or used for a different purpose. You can find shades of this all over UK cities. In some cases they took the opportunity to remove some of the wilder Victorian ‘restoration’ changes.
Most famously, Coventry Cathedral was left as a bombed-out ruin and a new cathedral building was built next to it.
Same story across Germany, of course. The Nikolaikirche in Hamburg is now a barebones memorial relic, the Frauenkirche in Dresden more or less remained a heap of rubble throughout the time of the GDR but was rebuilt after re-unification pretty much as it originally was, the Reichstag in Berlin was re-imagined as the new Bundestag after re-unification.
It’s all a question of what, culturally, the building is there to be/symbolise and to do.
Because every bit of non-medieval elements added takes out a little more of the essence of the medieval building. The modern stuff are a neccessary evil, and need to be curtailed wherever possible.
If a small, localized fire was not a problem, why would a full-blown blaze be?
If only it was that simple. The 1950s concrete ceilings of All Hallows by the Tower were the fifth time the roofs had been completely replaced in just three centuries. No one has much idea what the roofs originally looked like, although the aisle ceilings have probably always been flat. Nor was the 1950s work cheap or quick. The interior was markedly more elaborate than what had been there before. The use of concrete was instead an aesthetic choice by an architect, Lord Mottistone, known for his bold designs, whether when restoring existing buildings, building new ones or (as, most famously, at Eltham Palace) combining the two.
I will go back to the example of the Kölner Dom (Cologne Cathedral). Construction started in 1248, was halted in 1560. According to Wikipedia:
Work resumed in 1842 to the original design of the surviving medieval plans and drawings, but using more modern construction techniques, including iron roof girders.
Does anyone seriously contend that Kölner Dom a lesser building because iron girders were used instead of the timber roof originally planned by its medieval architects?
Also the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin. And for a bit of trivia, it’s briefly visible in the film Octopussy.
I’ve always been rather interested by the Ulm Minster. It was started in 1377. It could have been the tallest building in the world, except the Eiffel Tower and Washington Monument were finished first.
Nope.
It was an esthetic decision to replace the fragile wooden trusses and the toxic lead roof with more of the same. The lead roof is highly visible, which probably influenced the decision. “We want to fix it quickly” probably also influenced the decision, as agreeing on an alternative might have been a lengthy process.
All Hallows By The Tower used to be called All Hallows Barking until recently (because it was owned by the Abbey of Barking in medieval times) but they got fed up with mail and deliveries going astray.
I remember being quite moved by the way they incorporated the old and new cathedrals. Especially the chancel.
