Castle review thread.

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18791
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Montegriffo »

Hastur wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:36 am
Montegriffo wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:37 am William the Conqueror's castle did the juxtaposition between old and new really well. Rather than replace staircases in stone or concrete they made large stainless replacements. This meant that you could tell which parts of the building were original.
I'd visit a cathedral with a roof garden. The inside would still be old but a glass roof would open up a whole new level of the church to visit. The views over the city would be fantastic.
If Notre Dame was the last medieval cathedral left or the finest example of the craft I'd feel differently but it's not.
It's already a miss match of designs and styles spanning the centuries with many of it's features only 150 years old.
A lot of people objected to the glass pyramid at the Louvre when it was first built but it is a much loved bit of Paris architecture now.

You're all just a bunch of fuddy duddies.
Have you ever been to the attic of an old church? The space between the domed ceiling and the roof. There isn’t supposed to be anything there. The top of the domes aren’t constructed to have any weight on them and the whole structure of the building is done to conserve weight on the top. You can’t just putt tons of soil and plants up there without first reinforcing everything else. It’s a really stupid idea.
That would be a really stupid idea but nobody is suggesting that you put any weight on the ceiling.
The weight would go on the walls, just like every other building ever built.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image
User avatar
Hastur
Posts: 5297
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:43 am
Location: suiþiuþu

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Hastur »

Montegriffo wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:40 am
Hastur wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:36 am
Montegriffo wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:37 am William the Conqueror's castle did the juxtaposition between old and new really well. Rather than replace staircases in stone or concrete they made large stainless replacements. This meant that you could tell which parts of the building were original.
I'd visit a cathedral with a roof garden. The inside would still be old but a glass roof would open up a whole new level of the church to visit. The views over the city would be fantastic.
If Notre Dame was the last medieval cathedral left or the finest example of the craft I'd feel differently but it's not.
It's already a miss match of designs and styles spanning the centuries with many of it's features only 150 years old.
A lot of people objected to the glass pyramid at the Louvre when it was first built but it is a much loved bit of Paris architecture now.

You're all just a bunch of fuddy duddies.
Have you ever been to the attic of an old church? The space between the domed ceiling and the roof. There isn’t supposed to be anything there. The top of the domes aren’t constructed to have any weight on them and the whole structure of the building is done to conserve weight on the top. You can’t just putt tons of soil and plants up there without first reinforcing everything else. It’s a really stupid idea.
That would be a really stupid idea but nobody is suggesting that you put any weight on the ceiling.
The weight would go on the walls, just like every other building ever built.
The walls aren't dimensioned to take that kind of load. It's not a castle. They wanted to go as high as possible with the cathedrals, so they made them light at the top.

Image
Image

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna

Nie lügen die Menschen so viel wie nach einer Jagd, während eines Krieges oder vor Wahlen. - Otto von Bismarck
User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18791
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Montegriffo »

Hastur wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:37 am
Montegriffo wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:40 am
Hastur wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:36 am

Have you ever been to the attic of an old church? The space between the domed ceiling and the roof. There isn’t supposed to be anything there. The top of the domes aren’t constructed to have any weight on them and the whole structure of the building is done to conserve weight on the top. You can’t just putt tons of soil and plants up there without first reinforcing everything else. It’s a really stupid idea.
That would be a really stupid idea but nobody is suggesting that you put any weight on the ceiling.
The weight would go on the walls, just like every other building ever built.
The walls aren't dimensioned to take that kind of load. It's not a castle. They wanted to go as high as possible with the cathedrals, so they made them light at the top.

Image
How much do you think a lead roof weighs?
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image
User avatar
Hastur
Posts: 5297
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:43 am
Location: suiþiuþu

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Hastur »

Not as much as a garden.
Image

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna

Nie lügen die Menschen so viel wie nach einer Jagd, während eines Krieges oder vor Wahlen. - Otto von Bismarck
User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Speaker to Animals »

Because of all the buttressing, I doubt it's difficult for modern structural engineers to make miner amendments that allow larger loads on the top of a medieval cathedral. Those walls can bear massive loads.
User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18791
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Montegriffo »

I imagine the architect worked it out before he submitted his plans.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... n-top.html
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image
User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 28382
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by C-Mag »

A square foot of lead sheeting is likely to be no more that 10 lbs per SF, a SF of soil 6 inches deep without vegetation of water will be no less than 35 lbs per SF.
PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18791
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Montegriffo »

C-Mag wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:26 am A square foot of lead sheeting is likely to be no more that 10 lbs per SF, a SF of soil 6 inches deep without vegetation of water will be no less than 35 lbs per SF.
You think the architect didn't work out what weight the walls can support?
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image
User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 28382
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by C-Mag »

I am completely offended by the crystal roof garden design proposals just on appearance and radical divergence from the historical structure. This type of thing is considered blasphemy amongst the Historical Preservation crowd.

From practical standpoint putting a living garden on top of a historic structure is stupid because there are going to be leaks, water, plants with roots and you are going to invite all kinds of pests to that space that will likely start to inhabit the rest of the historic structure.
PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18791
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Castle review thread.

Post by Montegriffo »

C-Mag wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:00 pm I am completely offended by the crystal roof garden design proposals just on appearance and radical divergence from the historical structure. This type of thing is considered blasphemy amongst the Historical Preservation crowd.

From practical standpoint putting a living garden on top of a historic structure is stupid because there are going to be leaks, water, plants with roots and you are going to invite all kinds of pests to that space that will likely start to inhabit the rest of the historic structure.
Fuddy Duddy.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image