We try, contrary to what some may believe, to find positive points in the projects of the Municipality of Paris. Thus, for the development of the Notre-Dame area, we had initially written (see article) that while the development of the square Jean XXIII was unacceptable, the treatment of the square and that of the south of the cathedral, between the latter and the Seine, were correct and rather an improvement on the existing one. This was without counting on the permanently misleading communication from the town hall, which even we fell for.
As for the parvis, while the overall approach: more trees on the edges and a largely open square in the centre seems to be a step in the right direction, we had nevertheless pointed out the absurdity of the "water blade" that is supposed to refresh the square regularly, and we had not seen that lawns open to the public would also be installed there, nor that they were planning to organise events there all year round (both of these points are highlighted in our last article).
But the south side of the cathedral, which we said was rather successful, is also in fact a disaster. Our mistake is explained by our lack of knowledge of these places before the fire. Although we sometimes went into John XXIII Square, we never walked as far as the water’s edge, and we did not understand that they were actually an integral part of the garden. When we wrote: "the development along the Seine is sober and will open up a route that was possible, but rarely used by visitors", it was silly and showed our ignorance of the place. We sincerely thought, which is a mistake we recognise, that there was not much there.
-
- 1. Le jardin entre le côté sud de la cathédrale et la Seine (en réalité une extension du square Jean XXIII). On peut voir les pelouses protégées par des clotûres, les fleurs, les bancs Davioud...
Photo: Google Streets (avant l’incendie) - See the image in its page
-
- 2. Le jardin entre le côté sud de la cathédrale et la Seine (en réalité une extension du square Jean XXIII) vu d’à peu près le même point de vue que l’illustration 1, d’après la vidéo du projet.
A pelouse plus grande, sans protection, plus aucune fleurs, ni de bancs Davioud. - See the image in its page
This was wrong as a simple look at Google Streets would have shown us. And, in fact, the treatment of this part of the garden is just as catastrophic as that of the rest of the garden, perhaps even more so.
The lawns, which were protected by small fences, are being enlarged to become large areas of grass accessible to all at all times, which, let us repeat, is the certainty that they will be degraded very quickly. The flowerbeds that used to exist there will vanish. This town hall really hates flowers. And the Davioud benches, which the project presentation documents tell us will be preserved, will disappear at least in part. The easiest way is to compare one of these Google Streets views (ill. 1) with the town hall’s project, from about the same angle, taken from the project presentation video [1] (ill. 2).
-
- 3. The building to the south of the chevet and to the east of the sacristy from a visual of the document for the CNPA
- See the image in its page
-
- 4. La construction au sud du chevet et à l’est de la sacristie d’après un plan du document pour la CNPA
- See the image in its page
We had also written that "no external construction, no "architectural gesture" threatens the monument". Here again, we made a mistake. We did not spot the construction of a building with a canopy to the south of the chevet, on a site previously planted with grass, which is carefully concealed in most visuals. This is next to the sacristy of VIollet-le-Duc, only a few metres from the cathedral (ill. 3 and 4). According to the document presented to the CNPA (see this article), it would be a "gardener’s room" (p. 64), "squares management room" (p. 27) or even a "squares management area" (p. 29). A gardener’s room? But what will they have to garden where there will only be grated lawns? A "squares management" room? But what exactly will they have to manage?
-
- 5. Image capture from the video presentation of the project. The "gardener’s room" that would be in the location of the purple oval is carefully removed or hidden by trees
- See the image in its page
-
- 6. Photo du modèle présenté au Pavillon de l’Arsenal aimablement transmise par @JCQDSE
- See the image in its page
What will this modern facility look like, built next to the listed Notre Dame Cathedral in a Unesco World Heritage Site? Curiously, all the visuals in the document for the CNPA hide it discreetly behind the foliage of the trees. Even the video presentation of the project by Paris City Hall makes it disappear (ill. 5), and Emmanuel Grégoire, the deputy mayor, obviously panicked by the overwhelming success of the petition, sent out a misleading tweet in which he claims that there will be no construction of a building on the surface. Thanks to JDSE (@JCQDSE on Twitter), we were able to get a photo of this building (ill. 6) as it appears on the model presented at the Pavillon de l’Arsenal (which we had not looked at closely enough): it is a cube, with a canopy. This is reminiscent of an aesthetic that we are all too familiar with in Paris, such as that of the restaurant on the Place de la République (ill. 7). Do we really want this at the bedside of Notre-Dame?
-
- 7. Restaurant de la Place de la République à l’époque de son inauguration en juin 2013
Photo : Clem (CC BY-SA 2.0) - See the image in its page
In short, once again, as soon as one digs a little into a project of the municipality, one notices that they are talking nonsense, that nothing holds, and that even with a lot of good will it is impossible or almost impossible to underline a single positive point. We were wrong: the project is in fact largely unacceptable.