Notre Dame

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Talking of taste, do you think that the French should take the opportunity to restore the original medieval colour scheme to the interior or stick with the bare stone?

You should realise by now what a snob I am!

I'm not actually seeing the image for some reason but I can guess. A bit of paint can be nice but I like plain stone.

Tangled Metal wrote:

Steel and titanium would be my preference. Let's modernise and improve. I think that's what is usually done to ND in the past so why not make it using the best modern materials and methods?

Why not? Because Notre Dame was built to last hundreds of years whereas modern buildings are usually expected to be heading for demolition after about 40 years. There is little quality in modern architecture. Everything is done to a cost - even when you look at stuff like Grand Designs, it tends to be cheap stuff that is being charged an arm and a leg for. It doesn't help that excessively young buildings now get listed - it effectively becomes a disincentive to produce a good quality building if after 20 years you need to radically change it to fend off a listing proposal.

That said, in the case of Notre Dame, a lighter roof structure made out of a non flammable material could make sense - it's not as though the roof structure was ever meant to be seen.

tangled_metal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-47971914

Collège des Bernardins is an example of a building just 100 years younger than ND that got a refurbishment with modern materials. The above link shows the roof in a state of repair. Modern steel and tiles. Looks good in the finished shot. Would be interested in knowing how long it's design life is.

step83

Lagrange wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

After the destruction of so much of the city he produced a plan whereby it could be rebuilt more on a modern grid pattern. If he had been allowed to go ahead London would be a better city today. Instead they just stuck to the medieval pattern.

Can you enlighten as to why London would have been a better city today if the grid pattern he proposed had been built? Different yes, better...?

Traffic flow mainly, mind you the Piazza's would be somewhat interesting now.

robert88

Step83 wrote:

Lagrange wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

After the destruction of so much of the city he produced a plan whereby it could be rebuilt more on a modern grid pattern. If he had been allowed to go ahead London would be a better city today. Instead they just stuck to the medieval pattern.

Can you enlighten as to why London would have been a better city today if the grid pattern he proposed had been built? Different yes, better...?

Traffic flow mainly, mind you the Piazza's would be somewhat interesting now.

Yes. Nobody in their right mind would plan a city like London!

It's a well known fact that London even with just horses was a traffic nightmare(sic). When, in the early years of last century the motor car was being introduced, it was justified by the claim that the new invention would alleviate traffic congestion. I am not sure that they did TBH but you decide.

DeVlaeminck

Tangled Metal wrote:

Steel and titanium would be my preference. Let's modernise and improve. I think that's what is usually done to ND in the past so why not make it using the best modern materials and methods?

Yes I agree, no idea what the best materials and methods are but even if most modern buildings aren't built to last surely we can build one that is.

rick_chasey

Read something that billionaires have showered 3/4s of a billion bucks on it so I think the can get some of the expensive sh!t.

DeVlaeminck

Rolf F wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'd like them to modernise rather than just rebuild as was even if rebuilding as was is possible. Keep what can be saved of course.

Why? Concrete and glass? Uglify it? Look at Coventry cathedral. An ugly badly made eyesore. At least the original Cathedral was really just a big parish church but France does not need that sort of philistine solution.

As it happens, my first visit to Notre Dame was probably my worst experience of very many Cathedral/greater church visits. Shuffling through amid a virtual crush of people. Second time much better. Joined the queue before opening. Then the heavens opened and the queue dispersed. We were happy to wait five minutes more in the rain and enjoy the impressive interior when largely empty.

This is its problem - it is an immensely popular attraction. I suppose wrecking it by a thoughtless rebuild would be one solution to that problem.

OK just caught up with this. My answer would be why is anything new necessarily ugly, why must a rebuild be thoughtless?

Is it impossible to create something modern yet pleasing to the eye, or do you just doubt that they would achieve that even if their intentions and budget were good?

I actually quite like Coventry Cathedral though so I may not be the person to convince you!!

awavey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Read something that billionaires have showered 3/4s of a billion bucks on it so I think the can get some of the expensive sh!t.

plus they at least got to declare it as a 60%-75% tax rebate...oh

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'd like them to modernise rather than just rebuild as was even if rebuilding as was is possible. Keep what can be saved of course.

Why? Concrete and glass? Uglify it? Look at Coventry cathedral. An ugly badly made eyesore. At least the original Cathedral was really just a big parish church but France does not need that sort of philistine solution.

As it happens, my first visit to Notre Dame was probably my worst experience of very many Cathedral/greater church visits. Shuffling through amid a virtual crush of people. Second time much better. Joined the queue before opening. Then the heavens opened and the queue dispersed. We were happy to wait five minutes more in the rain and enjoy the impressive interior when largely empty.

This is its problem - it is an immensely popular attraction. I suppose wrecking it by a thoughtless rebuild would be one solution to that problem.

OK just caught up with this. My answer would be why is anything new necessarily ugly, why must a rebuild be thoughtless?

Is it impossible to create something modern yet pleasing to the eye, or do you just doubt that they would achieve that even if their intentions and budget were good?

I actually quite like Coventry Cathedral though so I may not be the person to convince you!!

I'd missed that as well. Rolf seems to be outing himself as BR's answer to the Prince of Wales.

Given that *the* thing about Gothic church architecture was the development of larger and larger windows, using more and more glass, I'd have thought glass would the perfect material to feature in whatever new roof is built.

Here's an ugly concrete building.


And here's a bit of Pier Luigi Nervi, in San Francisco.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Talking of taste, do you think that the French should take the opportunity to restore the original medieval colour scheme to the interior or stick with the bare stone?

You should realise by now what a snob I am!

I'm not actually seeing the image for some reason but I can guess. A bit of paint can be nice but I like plain stone.

Tangled Metal wrote:

Steel and titanium would be my preference. Let's modernise and improve. I think that's what is usually done to ND in the past so why not make it using the best modern materials and methods?

Why not? Because Notre Dame was built to last hundreds of years whereas modern buildings are usually expected to be heading for demolition after about 40 years. There is little quality in modern architecture. Everything is done to a cost - even when you look at stuff like Grand Designs, it tends to be cheap stuff that is being charged an arm and a leg for. It doesn't help that excessively young buildings now get listed - it effectively becomes a disincentive to produce a good quality building if after 20 years you need to radically change it to fend off a listing proposal.

That said, in the case of Notre Dame, a lighter roof structure made out of a non flammable material could make sense - it's not as though the roof structure was ever meant to be seen.

You should have visited Sainte Chapelle (also in Paris), which would give you an inkling of the colour scheme. Not so much a bit of paint, but every surface painted in vivid contrasting colours. Bare stone is a complete anachronism. Even the Calvinists whitewash their interiors. As for intended lifespan, that depends on the building - some is short; some much longer - but of course everything is done to a cost. Always was.

And don't believe *anything* you see on Grand Designs, especially the budgets.

rick_chasey

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

More often than not it's a case of champagne tastes; beer money, and a refusal to reconcile one with the other.

awavey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

but where would be the drama without a Kevin McCloud side glance and roll of the eyes at the camera ? with the tension of will they afford it during the ad breaks...its TV still remember

awavey

rjsterry wrote:

You should have visited Sainte Chapelle (also in Paris), which would give you an inkling of the colour scheme. Not so much a bit of paint, but every surface painted in vivid contrasting colours. Bare stone is a complete anachronism. Even the Calvinists whitewash their interiors. As for intended lifespan, that depends on the building - some is short; some much longer - but of course everything is done to a cost. Always was.

Sainte Chapelle is absolutely stunning, I remember walking in the main chapel and literally doing a Keanu Reeves style "whooaaa" and then picking my jaw up off the floor, the stained glass and decoration is just unlike anything you normally see in churches or cathedrals certainly in the UK, and its just every where you look its sensory overload you cant take it all in, if Notre Dame looked like that inside,Id probably have been more impressed but I always recommend friends/family go to Sainte Chapelle when visiting Paris

rjsterry

awavey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

but where would be the drama without a Kevin McCloud side glance and roll of the eyes at the camera ? with the tension of will they afford it during the ad breaks...its TV still remember

Let's just say there is considerable dramatic licence employed in deciding what footage ends up in the final programme.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

More often than not it's a case of champagne tastes; beer money, and a refusal to reconcile one with the other.

Maybe but a bloke at work gave an architect a budget of £150k to modernise a 200 square metre house in Surrey. Bloke came back with side extension, rear extension and a loft conversion. Interestingly he refused to pay the architect on the grounds that he had not answered the brief.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

More often than not it's a case of champagne tastes; beer money, and a refusal to reconcile one with the other.

Maybe but a bloke at work gave an architect a budget of £150k to modernise a 200 square metre house in Surrey. Bloke came back with side extension, rear extension and a loft conversion. Interestingly he refused to pay the architect on the grounds that he had not answered the brief.

I can't speak for others in my profession, but I've missed out on a couple of projects recently, because I told the potential clients that their ideas and budget didn't match.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

More often than not it's a case of champagne tastes; beer money, and a refusal to reconcile one with the other.

Maybe but a bloke at work gave an architect a budget of £150k to modernise a 200 square metre house in Surrey. Bloke came back with side extension, rear extension and a loft conversion. Interestingly he refused to pay the architect on the grounds that he had not answered the brief.

I can't speak for others in my profession, but I've missed out on a couple of projects recently, because I told the potential clients that their ideas and budget didn't match.

What would you advise to potential customers?

I always have an innate suspicion that it’s all in their interest to hike the prices up because of asymmetric information, so I would naturally err towards any architect who would say they could do it for the lowest price.

I imagine this is not the whole story but hard to know if that behaviour is rife or not.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, are the budgets considerably higher?

By the end of my own refurb I had got surprisingly good at costing up building work. Certainly good enough to know that architects are talking sh1te when they claim to be surprised that their plans cost double your budget.

More often than not it's a case of champagne tastes; beer money, and a refusal to reconcile one with the other.

Maybe but a bloke at work gave an architect a budget of £150k to modernise a 200 square metre house in Surrey. Bloke came back with side extension, rear extension and a loft conversion. Interestingly he refused to pay the architect on the grounds that he had not answered the brief.

I can't speak for others in my profession, but I've missed out on a couple of projects recently, because I told the potential clients that their ideas and budget didn't match.

What would you advise to potential customers?

I always have an innate suspicion that it’s all in their interest to hike the prices up because of asymmetric information, so I would naturally err towards any architect who would say they could do it for the lowest price.

I imagine this is not the whole story but hard to know if that behaviour is rife or not.

Maybe not the place for a long discourse, but PM me if you are interested. In short I would say be realistic about how far your money will go. If X is outside your budget, find the money or accept you can't afford it. Pick an architect that sets out exactly what they will do over the course of the project and the fee for each element, rather than an open ended time charge or a percentage of the construction cost. Fundamentally architects are selling their time and if the fee is low, you will be getting less attention.

rick_chasey

Makes sense.

The challenge I have is I have no idea how far the money does go, beyond common sense guesses which are usually someway off.

Trivial example; I was not expecting a new front door to cost 4 figures.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Makes sense.

The challenge I have is I have no idea how far the money does go, beyond common sense guesses which are usually someway off.

Trivial example; I was not expecting a new front door to cost 4 figures.

Depends what you want. You can buy a bog standard door for £300 but that's just the door. If one have just dropped £1.5M on a nice terraced 4-bed off Clapham Common, then that's going to look a little out of place. Add in fitting, decoration and ironmongery - obviously you'll have to go for Farrow & Ball, and Banham locks 'cause that's what the Jones's have - and you can easily spend a couple of grand.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Makes sense.

The challenge I have is I have no idea how far the money does go, beyond common sense guesses which are usually someway off.

Trivial example; I was not expecting a new front door to cost 4 figures.

Depends what you want. You can buy a bog standard door for £300 but that's just the door. If one have just dropped £1.5M on a nice terraced 4-bed off Clapham Common, then that's going to look a little out of place. Add in fitting, decoration and ironmongery - obviously you'll have to go for Farrow & Ball, and Banham locks 'cause that's what the Jones's have - and you can easily spend a couple of grand.

Ha I’ve researched those types of doors; more like £5,000+ unless you fit them yourself.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Makes sense.

The challenge I have is I have no idea how far the money does go, beyond common sense guesses which are usually someway off.

Trivial example; I was not expecting a new front door to cost 4 figures.

Depends what you want. You can buy a bog standard door for £300 but that's just the door. If one have just dropped £1.5M on a nice terraced 4-bed off Clapham Common, then that's going to look a little out of place. Add in fitting, decoration and ironmongery - obviously you'll have to go for Farrow & Ball, and Banham locks 'cause that's what the Jones's have - and you can easily spend a couple of grand.

Ha I’ve researched those types of doors; more like £5,000+ unless you fit them yourself.

Point is, at that level, you're spending it because you want to rather than because you need to.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Makes sense.

The challenge I have is I have no idea how far the money does go, beyond common sense guesses which are usually someway off.

Trivial example; I was not expecting a new front door to cost 4 figures.

I know what you mean and don’t understand why a builder/architect can not just give a rough ball park figure - loft conversion £60k, rear extension £100k etc.

However a good architect will come up design ideas you would never have thought of, save you money and keep the builder honest.

orraloon

The bees made it through.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47995604

robert88

orraloon wrote:

The bees made it through.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47995604

Quasimodo? He ok?

tangled_metal

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Makes sense.

The challenge I have is I have no idea how far the money does go, beyond common sense guesses which are usually someway off.

Trivial example; I was not expecting a new front door to cost 4 figures.

Depends what you want. You can buy a bog standard door for £300 but that's just the door. If one have just dropped £1.5M on a nice terraced 4-bed off Clapham Common, then that's going to look a little out of place. Add in fitting, decoration and ironmongery - obviously you'll have to go for Farrow & Ball, and Banham locks 'cause that's what the Jones's have - and you can easily spend a couple of grand.

Ha I’ve researched those types of doors; more like £5,000+ unless you fit them yourself.

We had windows and back door put into a terraced house (we're northerners so cheap and we must still be able to string the washing across the street during the day). Got a quote for front door with what I believe is called a half light. Nothing spectacular a plastic door with window above and usual locks you find these days. £2500!!

We still have the wooden front door. Well it's safe enough to leave it open round here so we don't really need the 10 point locking mechanism and toughened glass.

So if you're talking £5000 for a fancy door with fancy ironmongery then that to me doesn't seem expensive really. Would that be real wood or uPVC wood effect doors for that money?

Hah! Just had a funny thought. Imagine a dodgy French architect got the job and put in plastic effect wooden doors and fake beams then ran off with a lot of dosh. You must know what I mean. I bet you've been into a few dodgy pubs with those stuck on fake beams to go with their sticky, beer soaked carpets!

rick_chasey

So for a standard composite door, nothing fancy - the ones you'll be seeing popping up all over the place - they're around £1200-1600 if you're getting them fitted with a new matching frame. If you want one with better insulation/locks, design, colours, handles etc you're nearing £2000.

For a wooden door you're right; you're starting from £2,500 upwards.

Tell you what, owning a house makes you extra dull doesn't it? I'm boring myself.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

I'd missed that as well. Rolf seems to be outing himself as BR's answer to the Prince of Wales.

Given that *the* thing about Gothic church architecture was the development of larger and larger windows, using more and more glass, I'd have thought glass would the perfect material to feature in whatever new roof is built.

Not entirely! For example, I rather liked St Josephs in Le Havre. But most cities and places are a mish mash of old and new and I see no reason to mess around with something that was perfect as it was.

As far as your suggestion of glass in the roof goes - how would that work. It would only be visible from the outside - not much light would get into the church unless you propose demolishing 13th century stone vaults at which point you might as well flatten the whole thing.

rjsterry wrote:

You should have visited Sainte Chapelle (also in Paris), which would give you an inkling of the colour scheme. Not so much a bit of paint, but every surface painted in vivid contrasting colours. Bare stone is a complete anachronism. Even the Calvinists whitewash their interiors. As for intended lifespan, that depends on the building - some is short; some much longer - but of course everything is done to a cost. Always was.

And don't believe *anything* you see on Grand Designs, especially the budgets.

I have - and one of the first things I thought about the fire was "thank god it isn't Saint Chapelle on fire! I think on a Notre Dame scale it might be a bit too much though.

As for Grand designs - I don't really believe anything I see on television these days. All the reality stuff is clearly about as real as Dr Who.