Dude fuck this guy. "Why use stonemasons when we can crush 800-year-old historic stone and mix dust and glue to form a horrendous slurry?" I don't care if your glue is sintered fucking inconel, dust-and-glue will NEVER be as resilient as fucking stone. And no one should humor this asshole when he pretends it is.We would crush and mix the stone and ash into a fine powder, that is loaded into a large inkjet 3D printer. The printer deposits thin layers of the powder and prints an ink on top of each layer, solidifying the powder to each other. Prints are then depowdered, and can immediately be put into the building.
The 3D printed material is durable against weather and mechanically sound, and would add upon the layered history of the cathedral.
It's kind of ironic they are based in Rotterdam. I think it was veen that related a saying like: "Rotterdam was first destroyed by Nazis, then by architects. I noticed a paucity of weathering data. Maybe for the interior? Rather than print, maybe computer-guided chiseling?
Why not celebrate modern stonemasons and craftsmen? What's the goal here, exactly - pretend that the fire never happened, or reaffirm the importance of Notre Dame to Paris, to France, and to the world? Sure - if you got the 3d prints, 3d print some shit. It's useful to have a machette to show you what you're doing. Can't find limestone from the original quarries? Find limestone from other French (or Italian, or whatever) quarries. I'm actually 100% fine with the idea of glulam beams holding up the ceiling; old growth oak used to be a commodity resource and is now a heritage so let's acknowledge that glulam is an aesthetically-pleasing application of two-hundred-year-old technology that allows modern Paris to join the heritage of medieval Paris. It took 100 years to build it the first time. "Rapid protoyping" is the wrong approach to take. Modern Parisians owe a debt to future Parisians to not fuck this up so take it slow and be human about it. I don't know how much unusable rubble they're sitting on, but until every museum in the world has more than they can use it's not enough. I came across this the other day. On the one hand, it looks a lot like masters'-degree interns whose time is not being utilized efficiently. On the other hand, it looks like a respect for history.
LOL I have no idea how to spell "maquette" and no interest in learning. I know what cartoons were originally that's enough nerd points.
That is the opposite of time wasted. If we could only have an economy that valued that. Not just for the sake of the product, but for the sake of the creator/craftsperson.I came across this the other day. On the one hand, it looks a lot like masters'-degree interns whose time is not being utilized efficiently. On the other hand, it looks like a respect for history.
A lot of renovation ideas have been submitted for this problem. Most pretty bad. I always thought this one was headed in the right direction. Maybe that spire is too much, but a chiseled glass canopy is nice. Having it be a farm is terrible though. Why not just a small park for contemplation? In my mind there is a direct lineage from gothic architecture to parametricism.
A true restoration should be the default strategy at this point unless someone can come up with a compelling design that is overwhelmingly beautiful. That may be impossible but it's a least a fun thought experiment. To my knowledge, Notre Dame in modern times remains an active participant in Parisian religious and civic activities. Historic but still at work. For that reason, I think it's worth considering how it can be renovated into the current image of the city, as cultural views on religion continue to change.
The tricky thing is it's already a sociologically fraught situation in that France's biggest luxury houses pledged 700m Euros to rebuild it. Rich people see this as trickle down economics. Not-rich people see this as proof that the rich need to be taxed more because, after all, it's not like they're giving 700m euros for hunger. Modernize Notre Dame and you're talking about memorializing a new Gilded Age which, frankly, will probably be a treasure 100 years from now but for the 90 years before that will be a divisive symbol of inequality.
Tricky indeed. I've worked on many public building designs. Community centers, recreation centers, libraries. One time my team was told that our proposal looked too good. The city did not want the perception that they were spending taxpayer funds frivolously. So instead of getting a building the town could perhaps be proud(er) of, they were given something not as good in my opinion. This is a different sitation though. It would be cool to watch a man-on-the-street type of interview to see how Notre Dame symbolically lives inside the minds of everyday Parisians.
I have been in it. It is itself beautiful and the space it creates in the city is incredible. I want to reiterate that I believe a potentially different idea added to the existing building is probably impossible to achieve because the original is just too powerful of an idea and image to manipulate and reenvision. Having it be the roof only is a constraint that even the best design can not overcome. In general though, I believe that it is ok to at least have a conversation about how a building can change for future generations. You're probably right in this case though and maybe the existing story of Notre Dame is in itself powerful enough to last another 500 years. What do you think it will it look like in 1000 years?