Does a preserved historic site still have value as it loses authenticity? This question divides historic preservation architects. But although some feel 100% authenticity should be maintained during the process of refurbishment, some updates are unquestionably necessary. 

Notre Dame Cathedral was built during the 12th and 13th centuries as France grew in grandeur and architectural prestige. New French Architecture’s buttresses and pointed arches were revolutionized by the immense wonder of the church. Located on the Île de la Cité, in the 4th arrondissement of Paris, Notre-Dame de Paris has thin, tall stone walls and large windows to let in bright light. The church is dedicated to the Virgin Mary and was commissioned in 1163 as a monument to both the Catholic faith and the people of France. Its cultural significance in the country is enormous; this is why its restoration stirs such an argument.

Notre Dame Cathedral’s current restoration process is headed by Phillipe Villeneuve, who is pushing for the project end product to be as close as physically possible to the original building, even going as far as to insist on possibly harmful lead roofing to be reapplied, which I believe is a huge mistake. 

One of 35 “chief architects of historic monuments” in France, Villeneuve has directed restoration work on the iconic Notre Dame Cathedral since 2013. Particular urgency has been placed on the project since the spring of 2019, when fire ravaged the cathedral’s spire and caused it to collapse. Its 800-year-old roof and rafters fell too, along with a few of its stone vaults. Now restoration is resuming, along with the ensuing argument over the process. 

One main voice is from Villeneuve himself, championing the idea of exact restoration of historic monuments. 

“Before, people repaired them, and they repaired them in the style of their day,” Villeneuve said. Now the architect wants to change that, by not changing the building’s architecture at all.

His main source of opposition is Jean-Louis Georgelin. Georgelin presides over the public entity established by French president Emmanuel Macron to restore Notre Dame and get it reopened by 2024. This is odd for this sort of project, which is managed typically by the culture ministry. Georgelin supports Macron’s proposal of a “contemporary gesture” in the new architectural design, which people have responded to with suggestions of glass roofs, crystal spires, and spires of light. 

The two conflicting opinions are stark visions of orthodoxy versus the modern contemporary. But Villeneuve has surely gone too far, insisting even that the lead roof be reconstructed to reproduce the sculpted ornamentation of former Notre Dame. He suggested this, despite the alarm that befell restoration crews as most of the 507 tons of lead on the roof and fire melted and fell into the church during the 2019 fire. A Columbia University scientist actually collected samples around Paris after the fire, and estimated that about a ton of lead had fallen within one kilometer of the site. Lead is a cumulative neurotoxin that can affect mental and physical development and kidney and brain function in any amount; it is carefully monitored by public health officials, especially with the danger it poses to young children In 2021, a science advisory board to the health committee recommended the use of lead in roofs and historical restoration be banned, and the Paris City Council had demanded that Notre Dame not be reroofed in lead. But still, Villeneuve has not wavered, and plans are to go ahead with his plan to use lead.

The architects claim the restoration is anticipated to be finished by 2024, even after the 2019 fire. National Geographic posed this question: “What part of the past is worth preserving and transmitting to posterity? What duty do we owe the creations of our ancestors, what strength and stability do we draw from their presence– and when, on the contrary, do they become a lead weight, preventing us from projecting ourselves into the future, from creating a world of our own?” 

If Villanueve made a compromise in his single sighted vision for the cathedral, there are almost endless possibilities for what the remodel could look like. Changes could be minimal yet functional: a substitute for lead roofing could be utilized in the new roof and spire, or new framework could be made of metal or concrete. Or the changes could be visual and avant-garde. A glass spire or a new stone pattern to rebuild the vaults wouldn’t be exceedingly difficult to create, but infinitely beneficial as a gesture of modernization, without egregious redesign. Neither the French public nor I am proposing a teardown gut-job in the restoration, simply a meaningful celebration of the new architecture of the modern age.

As Villeneuve and Georgelin clash over this question, the future of one of France’s most important cultural symbols hangs in the balance. But the clear answer is what is best for our future. To preserve the creations of our ancestors is important, but not at the risk of health issues, and not at the risk of sacrificing the future of human creation. Georgelin is right; it’s time for Notre Dame to move beyond the spire that fire ripped down and the 800-year-old rotting structure. It’s time for Notre Dame to move forward.

Photo courtesy of UNSPLASH.com