> the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques
That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring.
Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building.
> fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire
I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.
> That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect
I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam that requires extensive knowledge of art history, ancient architecture and preservation/restoration techniques. Most architects with this title have businesses of their own, they're just specialized in restoration work rather than construction work, and they're assigned a number of territories to study and preserve their monuments (as long as they're state-owned). It's not, at all, about "navigating the civil service", and since they're architects, they're not overseeing any architects besides their own employees.
> I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam
No, Architecte et urbaniste de l'État is an exam (like everything regarding the civil service in France). Architecte en chef very much is a promotion. It's the grade following Architecte de l'État and preceding Architecte générale.
> Most architects with this title have businesses of their own
No, they are all civil servants and work for a minister.
> navigating the civil service
Yes, being promoted is very much about getting old and navigating the civil service. Architecte et urbaniste de l'État very much is a managing position with all it implies when you are working for the state.
You're confusing with Architecte des bâtiments de France. ACMH is a competitive exam and the Wikipedia page [1] can clear that up. I know several people who took it. It's just become very rare, like one every four years. It's definitely not a promotion, and unrelated to the ABF position (which is a part of AUE). But it is equivalent to being a civil servant, except you can have an architecture business of your own.
>Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time.
I don't buy this idea. The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds of years to make a trek to see it. Modern architecture is bland, glass-and-metal, uninspired crap; shiny jewels with no staying power that will be torn down within a century to make room for something else, or brutalist monstrosities put here to punish us with their brooding ugliness.
The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds
The original design is not the cathedral that stood there before the fire. People have been adding modern touches to the cathedral for centuries, why not continue that tradition?
The spire that collapsed had been inaugurated in 1859, so it's relatively recent compared to the age of the cathedral. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject but dismissing modern architecture as a whole before we've even seen the first proposals doesn't seem very... constructive.
1) The spire rebuilt in 1859 by Viollet-Le-Duc didn't have XIXe century look, it was heavily inspired by the one of the Orleans cathedral
2) Even with that, Viollet-Le-Duc is somewhat criticized for it's restoration works as he generally chose what looked "nice" as opposed to historical accuracy or significance.
Rebuilding the spire in a modern style would be a mistake in my opinion, or at the very least, a huge risk of style disunity of the building, rebuilding in Gothic style maybe boring but it's safe.
As to which technics could be used, that's another matter. Notre-Dame would not be the first cathedral to be rebuilt using the technics of the day.
Reims was rebuilt using concret, and the result is actually quite beautiful:
Perhaps it would be better to build something that the original designers would build if they had our technology. https://www.designboom.com/architecture/vincent-callebaut-no... looks like a good direction to me (needs to use more coloured glass and mosaics).
> The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.
>an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring...
If you believe that's all it takes to be Architecte en chef des monuments historiques in a place like France, you just don't have a full appreciation for the importance France attaches to its history and culture.
> I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
Like the German Reichstag modifications post-reunification, but there also was a very different modification in the 1960s, early 70s. Such projects can go both directions, even on the very same building.
That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring.
Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building.
> fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire
I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.