Why the Notre Dame needle should not be rebuilt

These days after the fire have already begun to launch debates that will be very important for the future of Paris Cathedral and heritage restoration in Europe. Among these debates, probably because of its iconic value, the question of what to do now with the spire of the cathedraldestroyed by fire before the eyes of the entire planet.

It's mainly about replacing it or not. And, in case of replacement, if this new needle was to be identical to the previous one of the 19th century or if it had to be built in a different style (more current).

Then I will give my vision of this debate to try to make sure that all those who wish to engage in the discussion have some element of judgment.

I specify that, as a cultural heritage professional, it is my personal criterion. There are no totally correct answers or absolutely wrong answers in all this and what I will explain is only my opinion.

Reasons for not making a replica of the burned needle

The needle that we saw falling was not "original" of the medieval temple, but an addition of the architect Eugene Viollet-le-Duc in his interventions of the 1840s on the temple. Viollet added this needle as a "replica" of that which the cathedral had had until 1786; it was dismantled due to stability issues. Since there was virtually no information on the operation of this needle dismantled at the end of the eighteenth century, Viollet invented a completely new needle, in the manner of his era (neogothic). You can see one of the plans below.

That is, the medieval cathedral had a needle that had been removed in the modern era because it was unstable. Then Viollet-le-Duc, six decades later, came back to make a needle, but to his taste. In fact, he included his own portrait in one of the copper needle carvings, figures that were recorded as they were removed a week before the fire. This needle has become famous around the world, thanks to the cinema. It was a neo-gothic jewel and we lost it in the fire.

We know perfectly well how needle was, because we have a lot of photographs and plans that Viollet-le-Duc used himself to build it. So, it's easy to make an identical one. There is no doubt that placing this needle "as it was" before the fire would be the most popular solution. This is perhaps also the option that Parisians and tourists want the most. The reason is easy to understand: we like to think that things have an arrangement.

But in reality, they do not have it. I explain myself. It is possible to give Notre Dame Cathedral a look identical to the one it had before the fire. But it will not be the same. It will be a replica of this aspect. The original was lost. If we make a needle that is a replica of the Viollet, we will falsify the history of the cathedral. Because the original burned and fell. And the whole world saw it. We will create a sort of theme park of what Our Lady was before burning her blanket, to satisfy our desire to see things as they were before losing them.

We know more or less how the arms of the Venus de Milo were, because they are documented. But it does not come to us to put these arms back to sculpture. Because Venus de Milo has lost her arms and that's part of her story. Just as the loss of the needle is part of the history of Notre Dame. We do not replenish the nose of the Sphinx of Giza, though it is not very difficult to do because the monument has lost its nose and this loss is part of the story.

Let's look at Viollet-le-Duc himself. His speech has always been criticized for falsifying the history of the cathedral by recreating a lost needle. And that's true. But even he did not answer. Viollet built a needle in the style of his time, seeking to harmonize this style with that of the cathedral. It was invented almost new.

Reasons not to make a needle in the current style

Since the competition for ideas for the new needle has been called, it has become clear that this option is preferred by the President of the Republic. Each president of France wanted his architectural symbol of modernity and it seems that Emmanuel Macron also wishes his Pompidou or his pyramid of the Louvre.

France is one of the best international architects of the last decades and candidates for this intervention will not fail. It would serve as a symbol of the "resurgence" of the cathedral after its fire, just like the dome of the cathedral. Norman Foster in the Reichstag Berlin symbolized the resurgence of Germany after reunification.

In fact, many people now think of this "Reichstag option" for Notre Dame. The idea would be to create a new modern part of the cathedral that would dialogue and complete the historic building. A sample of the current architectural talent talking to the past in the same building. This type of constructive exercises is very interesting and the great architects will surely like the idea of ​​being part of the history of one of the most emblematic monuments of Europe.

It should be said that, if done well, this alternative would be compatible with the international restoration criteria, which indicates (simplifying a lot) that if a new part is added to a historic building, it must be executed in a different style and easily identifiable, as long as it does not harm or harm the aesthetics of the whole.

Another undeniable advantage of this option is that it can facilitate the visit of the cathedral. Because they would intervene for the first time with the criteria of the 21st century in a historic building which, as happens usually in older architectures, is not very functional to receive millions of visitors each year. An intervention of this type can help solve accessibility problems in the building or provide dependencies that could be useful for its current use, such as the Reichstag Dome or the Louvre Pei Pyramid.

For example, creating a new panoramic terrace above the cathedral would be of obvious tourist interest. The new roof could also be used as the seat of a Notre Dame museum, thus providing a space that did not exist until now to better explain the building and its history to visitors from around the world.

Personally, this option seems to me preferable to the replication of the needle "as it was" until the fire. But I do not support him either. I do not believe that Notre Dame should be the place of a dialogue between current architecture and historical architecture.

On the one hand, because it's too iconic and recognizable, something that has not happened so much with the Berlin Parliament or the Louvre. In these two examples, the contemporary part is important, but the historic building can still be visualized without distortion by simply looking on the other side, while a twenty-first century needle in Notre Dame would be visible from virtually every perspective.

But on the other hand, because this alternative would involve linking the cathedral of Paris to the proper name of a concrete architect. Something I do not consider to be the right thing to do. Just as everyone calls the "Foster Dome" the work of the Reichstag, we would have (for example) the "new needle" at Notre Dame. A unipersonal presence that seems excessive in a monument resulting from the work of many hands, many of which remained totally anonymous. The new needle would distort the history of the building in my opinion.

So what do we do?

Having discarded the two main solutions considered in this debate, I understand that you will ask which option is the best for me.

My opinion is that a minimal intervention would be the most appropriate. Act on the original materials that have been retained to ensure overall stability, but do not build anything else that has not been saved from fire.

(Only what is strictly necessary to guarantee the use of the church for both worship and visits)

For example, a new roof will have to be built. Because the church can not be without cover. For this roof, I would let the current carpenters create a new wooden frame, modern but inspired by the traditional burning. As he explains it perfectly in The country Idoia Camiruaga, specialist of ICOMOS, the wood has not been the cause of this fire and its use has more advantages than disadvantages.

For vaults or parts of lost walls, I would use the same criteria as those used by David Chipperfield for the extraordinary rehabilitation of the site. Neues Museum in Berlin (in the picture below). A building much more destroyed than Our Lady and which is now fully functional thanks to the fact that the minimum has been built and always so that we can clearly see what parts of the building have survived. fire and which ones are new.

So, the building tells its story. Teach your scars. As a mature society, we must badume the loss of what has been destroyed by fire and ensure the survival of what has been saved.

Following this model, I defend a cathedral of Notre-Dame without needle. A reminder of its history and the destruction suffered by the building. One way to make us see that heritage is more fragile than we normally think.