[theoh]

The standard interpretation of this is something like the following:

If you replace an element (e.g. a brick) with a new brick, you should aim for it to blend in discreetly and convincingly with the existing structure BUT you should not try to conceal the fact that it is a repair (by distressing it, for example).

[logfromblammo]

I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument.

The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence from the structure to make conclusions about construction materials and methods of a particular era.

Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. If those could be added later, and become part of the historic character of the building, why not steel structural beams and reinforced concrete supports now?

[anoncake]

> Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral.

Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.

[ceejayoz]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/europe/notre-dame-c...

> After construction had begun, flying buttresses were added to the design of the cathedral.

IIRC, they also upgraded the first set with sturdier ones in the 14th Century.

[anoncake]

Why didn't anyone tell David Chipperfield?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Berlin_Neues_Museum_001....

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Neues_Museum_06b_Treppen...

This is the first time I've heard of your interpretation. I'm afraid it's not as standard as you think.

[theoh]

Thanks for the characteristically rude HN assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I know all about Chipperfield, at least to the extent of having seen him lecture about his work in Berlin. He was inspired by Dollgast's work http://www.prewettbizley.com/graham-bizley-blog/dollgast and to be honest I don't see the contradiction with what I said. Not everything Chipperfield did in the Neues Museum falls into the category of "restoration" but the parts that do absolutely follow this principle of discreet but identifiable replacement.

Chipperfield on Dollgast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfizDUjvomA&t=36m56s

See especially the bit at 38:30 where he talks about not confusing the original with the new (in archaeological reconstruction).

Here also is a reference to a 2013 book that says almost exactly what I said: https://books.google.ie/books?id=ddTZAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT366&dq=br...

Please don't further pollute the already toxic environment on HN by assuming the person you are talking to is incompetent, acting in bad faith, or knows less than you do.

[dang]

I appreciate your knowledge on this topic and your many knowledgeable, polymathic even, contributions to HN. All of that is fabulous. It's just what this site is for. I'm afraid, though, that you added more toxicity just now than anoncake did. I don't see an assumption there that you don't know things—only a question. At minimum, that would be the charitable interpretation à la the site guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

I think the phenomenon here is how all-too-easy it is to add to toxicity while trying to defend the environment (and oneself) from toxicity. A lot of us do this. I do it myself, and have constantly to learn not to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[throwawaylolx]

>I don't see an assumption there that you don't know things—only a question.

The initial poster used a mocking phrase "Why didn't anyone tell David Chipperfield?" This is not "only a question"--it's an obviously sarcarstic question. Not claiming that OP's post is justified or my post is not off-topic, but IMO if you want to intervene from an understanding angle, you should see it from GP's perspective as well

[mceachen]

Dang, you're good. Thank you.

[anoncake]

Thank you. I wondered if my phrasing was that bad.