Let's say this giant is at one end of the spectrum, and the Mona Lisa is at the other. Its subjective where you place cathedrals, but certainly the builders intended it to be an operational building, and throughout its history there have been additions and modifications.
What exactly is different this time so that we do not leave a piece of contemporary history in Notre Dame?
Context: French, huge amateur of Middle Ages history.
Don't be so quick to judge your contemporaries, as today's turd may very well be tomorrow's jewel. The Eiffel Tower was considered a useless monstrosity back then, with many people (including famous authors, artists, and architects) opposing its construction.
Furthermore, some architects and engineers are deliberately provoking ire by designing ugly and offensive structures. I mean, in what reality would someone enjoy having their eyes and senses brutalized by a Brutalist? It's sadomasochism on a civic level.
Eiffel strikes me as sort of a utilitarian skeleton piece; a proof of concept that made Lady Liberty a reality. But yeah, the tower itself is still kinda ugly, especially in comparison to the graceful and sinuous surroundings it was plopped into. I must admit that any true fan of Erector Sets would find it somewhat cool.
Notre-Dame, as a building, embodies Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, just as her faithful people do, and the edifice stands to project the Gospel of truth. I'd never object to a veggie garden, but perhaps let's not encourage gardeners to clomp around on the sacred roof.
John 20:15
Parisians hated it when Haussman rebuilt the city under Napoleon III, now it's considered one of the most picturesque cities in the world. Parisians hated it when the Eiffel Tower was built, now it's the symbol of France across the world and the most visited monument in the world. Parisians hated it when the pyramid of the Louvres was built, now new presidents do their inauguration speeches in front of it.
Point is, contemporary architecture is always ugly. Give it 50 years and it becomes historical and beloved.
Survivor’s fallacy. This doesn’t change that 98%+ of architecture has been ripped out and remodeled after 50 years. And some never catch on - almost everyone hates brutalism.
I am pleased that you and the entire world uniformly consider Paris objectively beautiful, and I have no choice but to abandon my foolish, subjective judgements!
(Pro tip: symbols aren't expected to be beautiful or attractive, as long as they're accurate. Consider a long list of ugly and repulsive symbolism and synechode. Everyone knows that the Venus de Milo's arms were taken, and that's a reason for its fame.)
There is no shortage of people who are offended and repulsed by beautiful objects. Something or someone can be quite objectively beautiful, good and true, yet be considered unwanted or distasteful. Perhaps contemporary Parisians were more rankled by the excessive progress, destruction, and upheaval, than the architecture in itself? Greeks and others maintain ruins of formerly beautiful sites, in deplorable condition, yet people still visit the ugly pile of rocks?
Not believing that there is such a thing as objective beauty is a recent phenomenon. Going back to ancient philosophers and in to the Italian Renaissance, the consensus was such a thing existed:
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/
And we don't have to go that far back to find it, as as 'recently' as the Victorian era architectural designs were based on such principals (such as the golden ratio):
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0XJpPnlrA
Having different be elements proportional to each other was basic stuff pre-WW2:
* https://www.youtube.com/@BrentHull/search?query=proportion
> Point is, contemporary architecture is always ugly. Give it 50 years and it becomes historical and beloved.
I'm not sure (m)any people find beauty in most of the brutalist buildings that are now ~50 years old.
Some of Le Corbusier's works are noted:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Architectural_Work_of_Le_C...
but I'm not sure how many would be called "beloved".
I can't really say which would be best myself, but the point is since the roof is already the not historical part of the cathedral, it makes little sense to rebuild it exactly in that precise not historical way. Instead, it could keep being the one evolving part of the building.
The last time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, by Viollet le Duc, it had been left in ruins for over a century and was redesigned as an idealized version of what it never was. So we are only preserving this version of the past by rebuilding it this way.
Also, a glass dome over the collosem would be hideous, which I think is reason enough not to do it :)