France has (almost) made up its mind: Notre Dame has to be restored to its 'last known visual state'.
Six weeks after the roof and the spire of the glorious cathedral caught fire, the French Senate put an end to the controversy over the restoration style of the Notre Dame, and with that an end to the dreams of ‘visionary’ architects who have occupied themselves this past month with creating design proposals for a new roof.
I cannot claim to be entirely saddened by the news. As an architect myself, I am entirely for a contemporary restoration (my thoughts on the issue are in my previous article), but given the solutions that the world of architecture and design has offered this past month, I am relieved someone has stepped in to protect us from our own madness.
Over the past few weeks, the Internet was flooded with all kinds of proposals: domes, towers and a plethora of glass roofs (see link at the end from Dezeen). All proposals with no exception offer a visual, either in the form of a photo-realistic rendering or a video. Some proposals suggest a program, but certainly not one that is based on in-depth site and historic analysis simply because there couldn’t have been enough time for that. And even less- if any- are the proposals that address what is beneath the visual. On April 15, the pitched roof that burnt took down several of the Gothic cross-vaults above the nave of the cathedral. To the tens of accessible green roof proposals: what kind of spatial and visual alternative for the cross-vaults are you proposing? None of the proposals floating online offers a rendering of the interior of the cathedral. Strange. One is left to wonder about the thermal, acoustical and environmental impacts these glass roofs might have not just on the newly added spaces, but also on the cathedral downstairs. Also, how are these roofs structurally and functionally complimenting the existing cathedral? And is a glass roof the epitome of all the ingenuity and advancement we have reached in the construction industry that we want the future generations to remember us for?
When architects are faced with a design brief as momentous as the restoration of the Notre Dame and they resort to déjà vu design language we see every day on commercial and residential architecture projects all over the internet, and they -perhaps subconsciously- recycle visuals of green roofs and curtain wall systems and stick them on the roof of the Notre Dame to produce a catchy image and publish it, it is quite concerning. It is indeed concerning when we overlook the need for structural, functional and historic research to feed into our designs and instead justify our proposals with poetic symbolism such as "A crystal spiral [is a] symbol of the fragility of history and spirituality. Light as a symbol of immateriality” (Fuksas Studio). Just the fact that the majority of the hundreds of proposals look pretty much the same- from young architects all the way to ‘starchitects’ such as Foster and Fuksas- means not enough thought has been put into the design, and an architect who does not put enough thought into a design before publishing it means she does not value neither the design process nor the significance of the building at hand.
All the proposals that were put forward on the internet are telling of an architecture that at its very core relies on acrobatic aesthetics in order to shock and stand out. It is almost as if the architect forgot about the actual cathedral and is instead solely focused on what they have to add to it (thus the absence of any rendering of the interior of the cathedral). If anything, this is an exercise in self-exploration and self-expression on behalf of the architect, but this is not architecture.
Stripping the process of architectural design from all its depths and layers and reducing it to an experimentation with aesthetics and form is eventually backfiring on architects. People are less appreciative of the value proposition of an architect and how much they can bring to the table, and they view their services as more of a commodity than a necessity: an artistic venture whose entire existence is dispensable and whose results are uncertain. People do not want to see architects' funky designs on top of something as solemn and valuable as the Notre Dame- this is not the place for architects’ artistic ventures.
Like the architects’ proposals, the Senate's decision was hasty. Members of the senate who passed this bill might not be experts in architecture and history, and their eyes might not be trained to perceive and appreciate 'good' design. For a decision of such momentum and weight, the consult of a diverse panel of professionals is needed. But here's the truth: you can assemble a panel as large and diverse as you want, and the people on it can spend months and even years researching and debating, the bottom line is they will be in search of a result that not only upholds the historic integrity of the cathedral, but also one that is welcome by the people.
Architecture is meant to be consumed by everybody, not only architects and design enthusiasts.
This is especially true with a landmark such as Notre Dame. This is not a private villa, or a painting that you can choose to buy if you like, or to overlook if it does not appeal to your taste. This is a landmark that speaks of a culture, a country and of the human race entirely. There is a world of difference between a private architectural commission and a commission to restore an internationally recognized historic landmark.
This is not to say that the Notre Dame should be restored to its original state- not at all. I think such a restoration would be a waste of 800 years of human evolution and also historical forgery in the eyes of the generations to come. However, architects could have been better off setting up a framework of inter-disciplinary analysis, research and design thinking that would ultimately feed into a design proposal for the restoration of the cathedral, rather than jumping into design proposals as if this is another private commission.
Architects of the world: we had an opportunity, and we blew it. We approached the restoration of Notre Dame as we would a private villa, we designed for the sake of design. We had an opportunity to offer something to the entire world- present and future- but instead, we chose to design something for our own selves- how self-absorbed. And because we couldn’t offer a proposal that adequately speaks to the present and the future of the people, they chose a proposal that speaks to something they are very familiar with: the romanticized past. The Notre Dame will be restored exactly to what it used to be, so put those glass roofs back on the shelves, but not too high up- you’ll use them pretty soon on the next commercial building.