After the fire at Paris’ Notre-Dame in 2019 and the destruction of the cathedral’s wooden spire, President Macron came forward with an idea: France would host an international design competition and look to replace the lost spire with a “contemporary architectural gesture.”

This precipitated a bunch of bold and “out there” proposals, but ultimately the public wasn’t down with this idea. Polls showed that the majority were in favor of just restoring the 19th century spire designed by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. And so the idea was dropped.

This, of course, is not surprising. For better or for worse, I bet that if you asked a random sampling of people whether they prefer old-looking architecture (technical industry term) or something modern, the majority would likely say they prefer the former.

Of course, in this case, we’re not just talking about any old-looking building. Notre-Dame dates back to the 12th century and is one of the country’s most recognizable symbols. People are naturally going to feel strongly.

But what is perhaps more interesting is that is an instance of history repeating itself. Viollet-le-Duc’s 19th century spire was obviously not Notre-Dame’s original medieval spire. It had replaced a previous one that had, for whatever reason, become unstable over the course of a cool five centuries.

And interestingly enough, the idea of doing something different was also rigorously discussed in the 19th century and the answer, then, was also no:

Viollet-le-Duc himself turned down a proposal to add two new spires atop the towers, arguing that such a monument "would be remarkable but would not be Notre-Dame de Paris”. Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.

Striking the right balance between preservation and progress is always a tricky one. But it’s maybe comforting to know that this struggle has been going on for as long as we’ve been designing structures. And in the case of Notre-Dame de Paris, there’s a long history to look to: just stick to the past.

I'll let all of you be the judge as to whether this was and is the right approach.

Cover photo by Fabio Rogerio Sant Ana on Unsplash

One of the many arguments that Brian Potter makes in this recent article called "Why Skyscrapers Became Glass Boxes" is that most people don't really care about the exterior of buildings. Hence one of the reasons why the market moved toward ever-greater architectural simplicity.

He quotes the late Chicago-based developer James Loewenberg:

“The person who looks to buy or rent a unit in a high-rise,” says Loewenberg, “only cares about three things: the location of the building, the layout of their unit, and the view from their unit. They don’t care as much about the physical appearance of the building and it is my contention that they never really look above the third floor…”

But I don't think this is exactly true. Also, Loewenberg was the founder of Magellan Development, which is responsible for developing two Studio Gang-designed towers: the Aqua Tower and the Vista Tower (now the St. Regis Chicago). Both of these buildings are designed for people who might look above the third floor.

For more on this topic, here and here are two related posts.

I think that lots of people would like to live in multiple places around the world. I know I would. That's why when people get rich and have the means, they often start to buy second homes. To that end, here's an interesting concept out of Japan called Not a Hotel.

Their model is fairly simply. What they do is build incredible design-forward vacation homes across Japan and then sell fractional shares, while at the same time offering full concierge and management services.

The typical fraction is for 30 days (1/12th), but if you'd like, you can buy up to the entire year. Ownership gives you access to the property for the amount of days you've purchased, or you can trade your days and stay at other homes within the Not a Hotel network.

On the nights you don't use, the company operates the home like a hotel and the owner gets the benefit of reduced management fees.

Most of their homes are already completely sold out. But 1/12th of this home in Kitakaruizawa is available for US$490,000. And on the other end of the spectrum, 1/36th of this Bjarke Ingels-designed home is available for US$2,460,000.

Here's a video of the home:

Fractional ownership is not a new model, but it is still relatively niche. I also think that the way Not a Hotel is going about it -- with their focus on over-the-top design and architecture -- is pretty unique.