> “The international competition will allow us to ask the question of whether we should even recreate the spire as it was conceived by Viollet-le-Duc,” [prime minister] Philippe told reporters after a cabinet meeting dedicated to the fire. “Or, as is often the case in the evolution of heritage, whether we should endow Notre Dame with a new spire. This is obviously a huge challenge, a historic responsibility.”
However, the senate passed a bill explicitly requiring that the traditional design must be used [3].
[1] https://www.archdaily.com/916723/the-peoples-notre-dame-cath...
[2] https://www.archdaily.com/915355/france-announces-competitio...
that's kind of the point with modern architecture. It's at best lame, often outright ugly from day one, and aways never age well. The only merit is that it is made of non-durable materials (concrete, glass and steel), so no one will look down on our civilisation in 800 years since there will be nothing left.
https://www.demilked.com/notre-dame-reconstruction-designs/
?
Because they are actually.. quite revolting. Even by modern standards, pretty disgusting. At that point you might just as well just bulldoze the whole building and put something new entirely there.
People don’t travel to Paris to see something that looks like a mall.
I prefer the approach taken at The Louvre and it’s pyramid of glass that is built next to the historical buildings without modifying them and giving a nice mix between history and modernity