In the wake of the tragic fire that ravaged the 800 year-old roof of the Norte Dame de Paris, an anticipated, recurring controversy will spread- kind of like wild fire in its own right- among architects, architecture critics, historians, academics and restoration specialists: what is the ‘right’ way to approach the reconstruction of the Notre Dame’s roof?
There will be those we may call the conservatives, who would want the cathedral to be re-built exactly as it used to be- to the same dimensions, motifs and materials that were designed in the 12th century. It is safe to say that this is the approach that the general public, and the majority of the ‘outsiders’ to the field of architecture and design would simply default to- less than 24 hours after the fire, some academics and industry specialists are already on the media providing estimates of the volume of wood that was lost in the fire, the quantity of oak trees that will be needed to make up for this volume, and where this oak will be sourced from as if it is a matter of fact that the roof is going to be rebuilt from the same oak it used to be made of, to the same shape and size.
At the other end of the spectrum, there will be the architects and design enthusiasts who would want the new roof to be an architecture statement true to its own time- a roof that reflects the state at which architecture as a craft is in 2019.
Reconstructing the roof of the Notre Dame exactly as it was designed- 800 years after that design was conceived- essentially overlooks 800 years of advancement made in the fields of architecture, engineering and building construction in specific, but also 800 years of the advancement of humanity and the human brain. Fundamentally, it pretends as if all the cultural exposure and technological progress that has been made by the human race since the start of the Renaissance has never actually been.
On the other hand, discarding the original design in all its intricacies and grandeur, would also be neglectful of the craftsmanship of the 12th century, and of the painstaking work that was put into that structure.
However in 2019, there are alternatives that can pull us out of this recurring controversy, and the alternatives are in fields outside of architecture and building restoration- they might just be in technology.
The world of AI and technology has a lot to offer, and it is time we as architects stepped out of our zones and tapped into these resources. With technologies like virtual reality (VR), 3D mapping and others, we can offer the future visitors of Notre Dame an experience of the cathedral’s original design and spatial qualities more accurate than ever before. Because it is constantly evolving, this technology will very soon get to a point where it will offer this spatial experience of the original cathedral more accurately than any architectural re-build will ever be able to. The preservation task being taken over by technology, that leaves us with the opportunity to build a new roof that is truly telling of the advancements we have made in the fields of structure and building material over the past centuries without burying the original aesthetic away from view.
The result is double-layered: a 21st century physical roof structure that will forever reflect the architecture of its own time, and an ever-evolving technology that will show the generations to come an increasingly accurate image and experience of what Notre Dame used to be when it was first conceived. Imagine for a moment standing inside Notre Dame, surrounded by the solemn masonry walls, gazing at the colorful glass around the altar, and having the option to see both a virtual image of what the original roof used to be as well as a magnificent state-of-the-art structure.
When we make reference to a ‘contemporary’ design for the roof of a historic building, it incites images along the lines of Zaha Hadid’s addition to Antwerp’s port house or Cook and Fournier’s Kunsthaus Graz, both of which are considered by some to be examples of a self-absorbed approach to architecture that primarily focuses on creating a very strong and memorable image in the viewer’s mind (irrespective of the spatial and architectural qualities of these buildings which are not the topic of discussion here). Such an overpowering architecture focuses on how the viewer will receive and remember it, and thus how it will forge itself as a landmark more so than it does on how it complements the existing architecture it is being added to. What we need to imagine in this case is an architecture focused less on the extraneous acrobatics and more on a spelled-out structural beauty and efficiency- along the works of Santiago Calatrava for example- an architecture that does not over-power but complements.
There are very few buildings around the world that do not belong to a country or a person but to the human race as a whole, and Notre Dame de Paris is one of those. With such a world heritage site at hand, if we want to restore a landmark that will last for another 800 years to come, humanity should employ its best interdisciplinary competence such that those living in the year 2819, will look at Notre Dame and see not only what humanity was capable of in 1163, but also the even more superior capabilities humanity had in 2019.
Monuments as such are, and should always be, a testament to human skill and accomplishment. Therefore, rebuilding the Notre Dame de Paris should not draw upon the skills and knowledge of historians and building specialists only- it should be a call for architects, engineers, historians, visual artists, user experience specialists and virtual reality designers alike to pitch in- it should call on the brain power and creativity of all these disciplines to come up with a result that is well indicative of the state of the human race in the 21st century.