I am a big fan of Modern style, but neither it nor post-Modern interpretations can enhance a treasure that belongs to the world, not just 21st c. Lesser structures can 'take' a sympathetic addition, but this deserves work that keeps the original intact in some sense.

This is not a trivial case of nostalgia but the repair of a World Heritage artifact. Guess who is going to do these new interpretations! 'You could make something rather amazing in there that explains the whole story of the fire and reveals something about the Gothic vaults'.

'there has to have incredible lightness, an incredible economy of means, so doing something with almost no material, which is very much the challenge of our age'.

'the spire is a natural position for something that is expressive and symbolic of something else.

'The decision to hold a competition for the rebuilding of Notre Dame is to be applauded because it is an acknowledgement of that tradition of new interventions'.

In any case, having read the brief article, none of the architects giving their thoughts on the spire, which were varied and thoughtful, came across as drooling over the chance to immortalize themselves. Over time, historical integrity recognizes marriages of eras and styles and the present can pay homage to the past by harmonizing its vision with the past without necessarily imitating it. Each relates beautifully to the already-existing structure while also being forward-looking and fulfilling a more contemporary aesthetic. Two recent renewals to older structures in my home town of San Francisco (where nothing comes close to the age of Notre Dame) are the new span of the Bay Bridge and the recent addition to SFMoMA. IвЂ™m sure some of them drool over their own immortality, some of them are probably negative Nancy cynics as well, but many would have a sincere desire to crown the cathedral with something uplifting and worthy. I think a lot of contemporary architects simply see the world differently than the gothic Victorians did.

Spire of notre dame