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

Witold Rybczynski's recent post about the tragic fire at Notre-Dame de Paris provides an interesting summary of cathedral construction techniques over the years:

The Paris fire is also a reminder of what a weird hybrid structure Gothic cathedrals really are. The ancient Romans roofed their basilicas and baths with concrete vaults (the Pantheon with a dome), and the Byzantines used thin domes and vaults of brick. Over time, builders lost these skills and Romanesque cathedrals were roofed with exposed timber rafters like big barns. This made the buildings highly susceptible to fire, often caused by lightning strikes. The solution, pioneered at Durham Cathedral in the 11th century, was to build a lightweight ribbed stone vault over the nave. The timber roof remained, so the vault had no structural function (except to support itself) but it separated the interior from the flammable roof above. This was largely effective as the April 15 fire shows.

Below is an image from the WSJ depicting Notre-Dame's timber rafters and showing the extent of the area consumed by the fire. Fortunately, relatively little of the cathedral was actually destroyed.

Going forward, there will almost certainly be a debate about how the roof and spire should be rebuilt. What materials and construction methods are appropriate for this emblem of Christianity and French culture?

But I agree with Witold in that "there is nothing inauthentic about rebuilding."

It is common to lament that buildings simply aren't built like they used to be. But this is not a new phenomenon. Construction methods change, as do the skills of builders.

There may have been critics in the 1220's complaining about how the cathedral's roof was built using wood, instead of concrete or brick vaulting. But that's what was relevant at the time.

We also know that there have been periods of time since its construction where Notre-Dame simply languished. In fact, some have argued that this week's fire was the result of decades of neglect.

But Victor Hugo once wrote that, “great buildings, like great mountains, are the work of centuries." Despite what unfortunately happened this week, that remains true of Notre-Dame de Paris.

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

Witold Rybczynski's recent post about the tragic fire at Notre-Dame de Paris provides an interesting summary of cathedral construction techniques over the years:

The Paris fire is also a reminder of what a weird hybrid structure Gothic cathedrals really are. The ancient Romans roofed their basilicas and baths with concrete vaults (the Pantheon with a dome), and the Byzantines used thin domes and vaults of brick. Over time, builders lost these skills and Romanesque cathedrals were roofed with exposed timber rafters like big barns. This made the buildings highly susceptible to fire, often caused by lightning strikes. The solution, pioneered at Durham Cathedral in the 11th century, was to build a lightweight ribbed stone vault over the nave. The timber roof remained, so the vault had no structural function (except to support itself) but it separated the interior from the flammable roof above. This was largely effective as the April 15 fire shows.

Below is an image from the WSJ depicting Notre-Dame's timber rafters and showing the extent of the area consumed by the fire. Fortunately, relatively little of the cathedral was actually destroyed.

Going forward, there will almost certainly be a debate about how the roof and spire should be rebuilt. What materials and construction methods are appropriate for this emblem of Christianity and French culture?

But I agree with Witold in that "there is nothing inauthentic about rebuilding."

It is common to lament that buildings simply aren't built like they used to be. But this is not a new phenomenon. Construction methods change, as do the skills of builders.

There may have been critics in the 1220's complaining about how the cathedral's roof was built using wood, instead of concrete or brick vaulting. But that's what was relevant at the time.

We also know that there have been periods of time since its construction where Notre-Dame simply languished. In fact, some have argued that this week's fire was the result of decades of neglect.

But Victor Hugo once wrote that, “great buildings, like great mountains, are the work of centuries." Despite what unfortunately happened this week, that remains true of Notre-Dame de Paris.