The first big skirmish over the future of Notre Dame has gone to the traditionalists, with the commission that was considering possible radical ideas for reconstructing the ancient monument badly damaged in a fire last year.
Dozens of radical ideas, including the swimming pool above and the greenhouse below were proposed to the National Heritage and Architecture Commission, but according to Culture Minister Roselyne Bachelot, “there was a wide consensus in public opinion and among those deciding” that the appropriate solution was to approximate the destroyed spire installed on the cathedral in the 1860s by Eugene Viollet-le-Duc.
The foofaraw of wild ideas was actually set off by French President Emanuel Macron, who had suggested shortly after the fire that “a contemporary architectural gesture might be envisaged” as a replacement for the 96-metre spire “since it wasn’t part of the original cathedral.” He suggested something that would show “respectful daring.”
The controversy over a spire only highlights the degree to which ‘build it back like it was’ is a tricky aspiration for a cathedral that has been altered and even rebuilt almost continuously over a thousand years, with changes in style and dogma dictating many of the changes.
Another new-vs-old issue remains ahead; the forest of medieval wooden beams that held the cathedral’s lead roof aloft over its vaults was largely destroyed. Some have held out the idea of replicating it with modern wood, while others have come down strongly on a simpler and more fireproof solution that would keep the outer appearance but be safer inside.
