Despite the trumpeted echo of the building’s bays above and being built in some sort of stone, this addition is neither sympathetic , nor given a Romanesque hatching to echo the original’s arches reeding. Worst still, its sheer size and monumentality makes it look bolted on and taste-free. This, on an organic building, and only for the purpose of protecting a portal, displays the worst in the look-at-me style of architectual statement making. Sorry, for me a carbuncle it is.
Last edited 2 years ago by Ian French
Rick Lawrence
2 years ago
If I lived in Angers, or perhaps anywhere in France, I would be organizing protest demonstrations.
Andrew D
2 years ago
Not sure what the writer is saying here. He acknowledges that the proposed design is not discordant and is built of stone, but then he says a contrasting glass pavilion would be a better option. So he’s favouring a modernist solution while at the same time decrying modernism for being incapable of rising to the occasion.
My preferred solution would be to do neither – just consolidate the stonework and sculptures of the central portal as best you can and do no more. A full-width addition (whether glass or stone) is not necessary, as the rest of the west front at this level is plain (with evidence of blocked arches) and is in no need of protection.
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago
We have to be careful that things like this aren’t co-opted into cancel culture.
Being just a little mischievous and remembering that the cathedral is not just a building but a religious sanctuary, what would be the reaction on this site to the cathedral having its own Wi-Fi router?
Given that more or less every parish church, oratory, basilica and cathedral in the West already has its own wifi router, I think your suggestion has come about ten years too late!
Kerie Receveur
2 years ago
It has a definite flavour of mo**e about it. Dreadful.
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
So add decoration. There are the craftsmen to do it.
Despite the trumpeted echo of the building’s bays above and being built in some sort of stone, this addition is neither sympathetic , nor given a Romanesque hatching to echo the original’s arches reeding. Worst still, its sheer size and monumentality makes it look bolted on and taste-free. This, on an organic building, and only for the purpose of protecting a portal, displays the worst in the look-at-me style of architectual statement making. Sorry, for me a carbuncle it is.
If I lived in Angers, or perhaps anywhere in France, I would be organizing protest demonstrations.
Not sure what the writer is saying here. He acknowledges that the proposed design is not discordant and is built of stone, but then he says a contrasting glass pavilion would be a better option. So he’s favouring a modernist solution while at the same time decrying modernism for being incapable of rising to the occasion.
My preferred solution would be to do neither – just consolidate the stonework and sculptures of the central portal as best you can and do no more. A full-width addition (whether glass or stone) is not necessary, as the rest of the west front at this level is plain (with evidence of blocked arches) and is in no need of protection.
We have to be careful that things like this aren’t co-opted into cancel culture.
Being just a little mischievous and remembering that the cathedral is not just a building but a religious sanctuary, what would be the reaction on this site to the cathedral having its own Wi-Fi router?
Given that more or less every parish church, oratory, basilica and cathedral in the West already has its own wifi router, I think your suggestion has come about ten years too late!
It has a definite flavour of mo**e about it. Dreadful.
So add decoration. There are the craftsmen to do it.