- Macron decides to restore the spire of Notre-Dame de Paris to the identical.
- "An interesting decision from a historical and technical point of view," said Bertrand de Feydeau, vice-president of the Heritage Foundation.
- According to the specialist, "the speed of the site is desirable because the building is very fragile".
Its fire in the heart of Paris had moved the entire planet in April 2019. In the following months, an interminable debate around its reconstruction continued to unleash passions. Restore the same architecture or modernize it? The verdict fell on Thursday: the arrow of Notre-Dame will indeed find the same pace. Bertrand de Feydeau, vice-president of the Heritage Foundation, explains this decision at 20 Minutes .
Why do you think Emmanuel Macron decided to “resuscitate” the spire of Notre Dame? What symbolism covers this choice?
This decision was taken on a unanimous recommendation from the National Architecture and Heritage Commission held yesterday. Emmanuel Macron therefore endorsed a proposal structured around substantive work carried out by the services of historic monuments. All the knowledge around the cathedral, all the work of Viollet-le-Duc were consulted. It seems legitimate to me to have questioned the possibility of a contemporary gesture on the cathedral.
In this case, what was proposed by the chief architect, namely relying on the work of Viollet-le-Duc, brings back to the fore the forgotten Gothic architecture, even decried in the 17th and 18th centuries. Restoring the arrow to the identical is not only an emotional proposition but an interesting decision on a historical and technical level.
However, would not rebuilding a more contemporary spire have made it possible to represent a France that is both modern and daring?
We can do it differently! Putting an element of modernity on such a beautiful and accomplished building is an idea which is certainly not contrary to the spirit of the origins but which, in terms of implementation, is extremely delicate. For example at the Louvre, when the entire restructuring of the museum was thought of, the building itself was not affected. However, there is indeed a very contemporary gesture established with the pyramid. You have to imagine paths that allow to restore the whole history of this district, including up to the Sainte Chapelle which today is difficult to access. One can think of something that is very beautiful, very modern: for example, audiences who come without necessarily knowing Western culture, it would be interesting to explain to them what happened in Europe at that time.
Do you think that the use of contemporary materials would have represented a risk for the building in several years?
It's hard to say. We realize that the techniques used are part of the philosophy of sustainable development rooted in our current society. Restoring an oak frame is one of the most effective and respectful techniques in history, but also of this spirit of sustainability that drives our society. Steel or concrete frame, I am not sure that these materials are adapted to the required flexibility of the building. The cathedral is a tall building, which takes the wind. If you put more solid materials, which introduce very rigid elements in a fairly flexible structure, this is not necessarily a good idea.
But isn't re-using wood risking new fires?
The wood treatment is largely developed. Once treated, it is no more exposed to fire than concrete or steel. Steel, for example, deforms with thermal shock. Wood offers very satisfactory characteristics compared to the risk of fires precisely. And, what is remarkable in France, is that we have kept our know-how. In relation to the maintenance of the entire heritage, for example, the cathedral site will be a place of transmission of knowledge to an entire generation and it would be a shame to lose this opportunity. Similarly, in terms of implementation, it is probably not more expensive than using contemporary materials. The framework of the cathedral, for example, is like a mikado: pieces that fit into each other, cut in the workshop, and if the site is well organized, it's a fairly quick process.
Exactly, do you think that the work can be completed in the allotted time, five years?
The speed of the site is desirable. The building is very fragile. The weight of the roof reinforces the whole, which makes it possible to harmoniously resolve all the forces exerted on the structure. Then, we have the technologies to complete this site within controlled deadlines, provided that exogenous obstacles do not slow down the site. Mainly concerning the spire, several elements come into account such as the statues being restored. But, I think that the main thing - that is to say the restitution of the overall balance of the building via the roof - is possible on time.
- Paris
- Culture
- Notre Dame de Paris
- Reconstruction