Notre Dame Cathedral: French Senate Says No To “Experimental” Spire Replacement
[guest post by Dana]
I say hear, hear for honoring the historical, and for treasuring the exquisite.
A 300-foot-tall flame sculpture, a shooting beam of light, and a tower that resembles a spaceship are among the outlandish proposals put forth by architects to replace Notre Dame’s legendary spire, which collapsed during the cathedral’s devastating fire in April. But, in the end, none of these architectural follies is likely to become reality. On Monday, the French Senate voted that the cathedral must be restored to resemble as closely as possible its appearance before the blaze.
There has been a vigorous argument about the design of a new spire. Demands that it be rebuilt to look as it did before the April fire stood in direct opposition to the push for modernization. The decision to regulate the renovation explicitly mandates that any renovation of the cathedral must preserve the “last-known visual condition” of the monument, including the spire.
Given that “two days after the fire, France’s Prime Minster Édouard Philippe announced an international architectural competition to reconstruct the spire, this week’s vote by the French Senate underscores the belief in preserving tradition. While Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris voiced a preference for a replication of the original design, President Macron said he was open to “a contemporary architectural gesture” that could make Notre Dame Cathedral “even more beautiful.” Oh, please. As if.
Here are a few examples of how architects and artists, and even landscape architects, imagined a new Notre Dame Cathedral spire:
Oh, and yes, this is a cross-shaped swimming pool on top of the cathedral:
Make this more beautiful, President Macron? I don’t think so:
–Dana
I’ve been to Notre Dame a few times. I’m relieved that the French senate voted to keep to the original design. I’ve seen quite a few, ahhem, “improvement” attempts in Europe, such as the glass pyramid in the Louvre courtyard.
About the only one I think was well done was Coventry Cathedral, destroyed during the German bombing of Coventry. I never saw the original, of course, save in pictures, and they had little choice due to it being almost entirely destroyed, so they set a new, modern cathedral next to it, and preserved the ruins of the old.
Notre Dame, IMHO, should be restored, as much as possible, the way it was in appearance. Most of it is still standing and sound, so this should be quite possible.
As for the designs that envision roof greenhouses and pools, I suspect those designers have never set foot in Notre Dame and looked up.
Comment by Arizona CJ — 5/28/2019 @ 9:50 pm
Thank goodness. No need to mess with a masterpiece.
Comment by Sean — 5/29/2019 @ 8:37 am
I’m surprised to confess that I found the first pic a bit fetching. I’d prefer a restoration of the original, but that one’s not that bad.
Comment by Another James — 5/29/2019 @ 10:03 am
Here’s an overview of the spot. It’s not original. The original one was irreparably damaged over the centuries. The replacement was installed during the 19th century. But nonetheless, stick with the historical.
Comment by Dana — 5/30/2019 @ 7:56 pm